Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Worst College Majors

2012-10-27T16:07:26Z

Cacterpus: /* Majors */ Geology has plenty of job opportunities and therefore does not meet the criteria for college's worst majors.

The '''worst college majors''' are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-[[liberal]] view of the world. Students incur an average debt in excess of $25,000 for attending college, and these college majors can leave such students without the ability to pay off their loans, which are typically not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Adding insult to injury, [[liberal]] colleges have begun charging students more if they decline one of the '''Worst College Majors''', and study something of value instead.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-04-24/differential-tuition-increase-major/54513940/1</ref>

==Majors==
# [[Feminism|Women's studies]],<ref>"Women’s studies ... is disappearing from British universities. ... Students have begun to realise, too, that women’s studies is useless for getting you a job. It’s no coincidence that the subject’s collapse coincided with the introduction of tuition fees. The moment you start paying for something is the moment you consider whether it’s really worthwhile." [http://www.theinsider.com/news/639292_The_End_Of_Women_s_Studies_And_Other_Useless_Qualifications]</ref><ref>http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000225.html</ref><ref>http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/why-is-gender-studies-dominated-by-one-gender-1.289830</ref> sometimes included as part of "gender studies"<ref>http://www.whitman.edu/content/genderstudies</ref>
# [[Atheism|Secularism]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/us/08secular.html</ref>
#[[Homosexuality|LGBT]] studies<ref>http://www.yale.edu/lgbts/</ref><ref>http://www.lgbts.umd.edu/</ref>
# Black studies <ref>[http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-most-persuasive-case-for-eliminating-black-studies-just-read-the-dissertations/46346, The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations. The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 30, 2012]</ref>
# Hispanic studies
# Film<ref name=georgetown>[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf What's It Worth?] Georgetown University, July 2011</ref>
# Puppetry
# English [[Literature]]/Literary Criticism
# Music Therapy<ref name="georgetown" />
# Dance<ref name="georgetown" />
# Interior Design<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Art History<ref name=yahoolist>[http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/110196/20-worst-paying-college-degrees-in-2010 20 Worst-Paying College Degrees in 2010] Yahoo! Finance, 08/12/2010</ref>
# Sequential Art<ref>http://www.scad.edu/sequential-art/index.cfm</ref>
# Surf Science and Technology<ref>http://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/1645/Pages/CourseOverview.aspx</ref>
# Golf Management – University of Birmingham / Florida Gulf Coast University
# [[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]
# Journalism <ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=4</ref>
# Psychology<ref name="georgetown" />
# Fashion Design
# Theater<ref name="georgetown" />
# Horticulture<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Human Resources<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Photography<ref name="georgetown" />
# Video Game Design<ref>One observer noted that not even the video game industry typically hires people who majored in video game design.</ref>
# Forestry/Range Management/Wildlife Management
# Environmental Studies
# Outdoor Recreation
# Fine Arts<ref>http://www.artcareer.net/faqs/job-market-outlook-for-artists-and-designers/</ref><ref name="yahoolist" />
# Astronomy
# Anthropology
# Sociology
# History of Music
# Climatology
# Comparative Religion
# Gaming Management<ref name="cat">[http://www.umac.mo/iscg/courses/gmdiphome.html 10 Worst College Majors for Employment]</ref>
#Creative Writing
#Ethnic Studies
#Art History
#Law school<ref>[http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/13/2894758/job-market-grim-for-recent-law.html Job market grim for recent law school grads] by Alejandro Bolívar, July 13, 2012, ''Miami Herald'', retrieved July 26, 2012</ref>
(please add to the list)

==Courses==
# The Colbert Report: American Satire Writing Seminar - Boston University <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-brotter/bu-offers-stephen-colbert_b_810122.html Class Credit for Colbert College Course, Huffington Post, January 18, 2011]</ref>
# Understanding Obama - Harvard Law School <ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/harvard-law-offering-understanding-obama-course-taught-by-obama-mentor/</ref>
# Revolutionary Marxism - Portland State University <ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/portland-state-university-offering-revolutionary-marxism-course-and-wait-until-you-see-the-syllabus/ </ref>
# Why Occupy Wall Street? The History and Politics of Debt and Finance - New York University <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/09/n-y-u-to-offer-classes-on-occupy-wall-street/ N.Y.U. To Offer Classes On Occupy Wall Street, Weasel Zippers, December 9, 2011]</ref>
# Occupy the Field: Global Finance, Inequality, Social Movement - Columbia University <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/02/occupy-101/ Columbia University to Offer ‘Occupy 101′ Course, January 2, 2012]</ref>
# Football Culture
# Queer Musicology – UCLA
# The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University <ref>CBS News: ''Harry Potter Goes To College: Professor Uses Boy Wizard To Explores Links Between Magic, Science'', by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, Sept. 26, 2003 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/national/main584456.shtml] ''...Frostburg State President Catherine R. Gira said she isn't worried that some may view a Harry Potter class as trivial. "Irrespective of the specific title of the course, the 'magic' in the fiction is being analyzed by applying concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. This honors course creatively packages scientific principles in a contemporary way that will interest today's students," Gira said.''</ref>
# Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
# Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
# Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvlL_lDk4ko Jason Mattera At CPAC, YouTube]</ref>
# Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington <ref> [http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180 Georgetown University Course Listing]</ref>
# The Sociology of Hip-Hop: The Odyssey of Jay-Z – Georgetown University <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz1fPkYhzqX Jay-Z's street rhymes a Georgetown college course]</ref>
# Emotional Literacy<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076368/Schools-councils-waste-300-000-useless-emotional-literacy-course-faraway-island-sun.html</ref>
# Media Genres, the study of zombies - University of Baltimore <ref>[http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/university-of-baltimore-pop-culture-class-focuses-on-zombies/19625044?test=latestnews College Course Preps Pupils for Zombie Apocalypse, AOL News, September 9, 2010]</ref>
# The Science of Superheroes - UC Irvine <ref>[http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/11/14/the-top-8-california-schools-that-are-like-totally-wasting-your-money/ The Top 8 California Schools that Are, Like, Totally Wasting Your Money, NewsRealBlog, November 14, 2010]</ref>
# Field Equipment Operation (tractor driving) - UC Davis
# Hip Hop: The Politics of Culture - UC San Diego
# History of Surfing - UC Santa Barbara
# Labor Studies - UM Saint Louis & UM Kansas City <ref>[http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/04/25/video-college-course-teaches-violent-union-tactics/ Video: College Course Teaches Violent Union Tactics, The Hot Joints, April 25, 2011]</ref>
# Arguing with Judge Judy - UC Berkeley
# Self-Esteem - Cal State Fresno
# Gaga for Lady Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity- University of Virginia-Charlottesville<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/lady-gaga-college-class_n_712540.html</ref>
# Pilot Brewery (brewmaster) - UC Davis
# Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence - UC Berkeley
# Ecology of Renewable Natural Resources - Texas Tech University <ref>[http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/courses/NRM.php Texas Tech University Course Listing]</ref>
# Introduction to social networking
#The Mythology of Harry Potter-UCLA
#History of Weaving-UC Berkeley
#The Simpsons and the American Family-Hampshire College
#From DNA to Homosapiens - MCLA
#LGBT “Sensitivity Training” - Georgetown University <ref>[http://kiradavis.net/exclusive-georgetown-allegedly-suspends-student-for-refusing-lgbt-training/ Exclusive: Georgetown Allegedly Suspends Student for Refusing LGBT Training, KiraDavis.net, July 23, 2012]</ref>

== External Links ==

*[http://www.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/graduate-degrees-dont-pay-off.aspx?ec_id=m1117367#slide=1 5 graduate degrees that don't pay off]
*[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Unemployment.Final.update1.pdf Unemployment rates and earnings for college majors - Georgetown University report - 2012]
* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf What's It Worth? The Economic Value of College Majors] - Comprehensive report at [[Georgetown University]] website
* [http://learnfinancialplanning.com/best-worst-college-majors-degree/ Best and Worst College Majors]
* [http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes]
* [http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/10-college-majors-lowest-unemployment-rates-163049193.html College majors with lowest unemployment]
[[Category:college]]
[[Category:education]]

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Pointmanzero

2011-07-22T00:49:01Z

Cacterpus:

Maybe some examples of what these atheists plot there would help. Thanks. [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 20:43, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-my_0zgAVs&feature=channel_video_title Neph Exposes it

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-22T00:26:43Z

Cacterpus: /* Conspiring Atheists */ new section

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

='Attention atheists' message=
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.

In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

::"...from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have..." Thanks for the chuckle. My grandfather and mother were Swedish, and believe me, they had a temper. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, I certainly learned how to spell words in some interesting ways. Some sources for these lovely statements would be much appreciated, as I know Conservapedia prides itself on citations. In particular, "every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people". Also I'd like a fact check on the statement that "the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have", (which also doesn't answer the point I made comparing murder rates between different states in the US).

I'm also not going to respond to your claim about the "evidence that evolution is false", because there is much, much, much, much more evidence supporting the fact of evolution. However, this evidence will likely be ignored by those who want to believe in design, similar to the way the evidence in the article I posted beginning this discussion was ignored.

As far as indoctrination, based off the encounters I've had, it seems most atheists examine the facts and reach that position on their own. Similar to the way that babies make the conscious choice to be baptized or circumcised and become members of a certain religion.

Didn't Jesus talk a lot about equality and treating people equally? I don't think equality is solely an atheist trick, and I'm not sure how it is bad that equality is an "atheist instrument". A society with equality and low murder rates - what a horrible scenario. I know I'd definitely prefer one with high rates of crime and slavery.

--[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 22:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again. I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military. I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== MIS-ATTRIBUTED MLK, JR quote ==

"We must remember that it's possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and to deny the existence of God with your life. The most dangerous form of atheism is not theoretical atheism but practical atheism."

i cannot find the original transcription of this quotation. i found very little, at all, but the most that i could track down that i could reasonably attribute to King was:

''[i]I decided early to give my life to something eternal and
absolute. Not to these little gods that are here today and gone
tomorrow, but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and
forever.[/i] (MLK, Jr.; from "Rediscovering Lost Values," Feb. 28, 1954)
''
AND
''
[i]... I want you to think with me this morning from the subject: "Rediscovering Lost Values." "Rediscovering Lost Values." There is something wrong with our world, something fundamentally and basically wrong. I don't think we have to look too far to see that. I'm sure that most of you would agree with me in making that assertion. And when we stop to analyze the cause of our world's ills, many things come to mind.

We begin to wonder if it is due to the fact that we don't know enough. But it can't be that. Because in terms of accumulated knowledge we know more today than men have known in any period of human history. We have the facts at our disposal. We know more about mathematics, about science, about social science, and philosophy than we've ever known in any period of the world's history. So it can't be because we don't know enough.

And then we wonder if it is due to the fact that our scientific genius lags behind; that is, if we have not made enough progress scientifically. Well then, it can't be that. For our scientific progress over the past years has been [sic] amazing. Man through his scientific genius has been able to dwarf distance and place time in cha8fs, so that today it is possible to eat breakfast in New York City and supper in London, England. Back in about 1:53 [sic] it took a letter three days to go from New York City to Washington, and today youcan go from here to China in less time than that. It can't be because man is stagnant in his scientific progress. Man's scientific genius has been amazing.

''I think we have to look much deeper than that if we are to find the real cause of man's problems and the real cause of the world's ills today. If we are to really find it I think we will have to look in the hearts and souls of men.[/i]" [b]MLK, jr.[/b]''

DOES seems to exist, but the entire section on "Manifestations of atheism" is thoroughly un-sourced. further, if i'm to understand manifestations to mean observable differences between possible reactions to athiesm, then i don't understand the distinction. i think that behaving/believing in deities are two sides of the one coin; there is no effective difference, and the quote is mis-attributed.
:::I did not write that material. However, I listened to a tape series of MLK speeches and I am 95% confident that he said it. I can try to confirm it though without listening to the whole tape series again. ;) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:12, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I fixed it, here is the sermon: http://www.globatron.org/truth/rediscovering-lost-values-martin-luther-king-early-sermon [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:21, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::''There is something in this universe that justifies the biblical writer in saying, “You shall reap what you sow.” (Amen) This is a law-abiding universe. (Amen) This is a moral universe. It hinges on moral foundations. (Lord help him) If we are to make of this a better world, we’ve got to go back and rediscover that precious value that we’ve left behind. (Yes)''

:::::''And then there is a second thing, a second principle that we’ve got to go back and rediscover. (Help him) And that is that all reality has spiritual control. In other words, we’ve got to go back and rediscover the principle that there is a God behind the process. Well this you say, “Why is it that you raise that as a point in your sermon, in a church? The mere fact we are at church, we believe in God, we don’t need to go back and rediscover that. The mere fact that we are here, and the mere fact that we sing and pray, and come to church—we believe in God.” Well, there’s some truth in that. But we must remember that it’s possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and deny his existence with your life. (Amen, Preach) The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism (Amen)—that’s the most dangerous type. (Lord have mercy) And the world, even the church, is filled up with people who pay lip service to God and not life service. (That’s right, Filled up with, Come on, Lord help him) And there is always a danger that we will make it appear externally that we believe in God when internally we don’t. (Yes) We say with our mouths that we believe in him, but we live with our lives like he never existed. (That’s right) That is the ever-present danger confronting religion. That’s a dangerous type of atheism.

:::::''And I think, my friends, that that is the thing that has happened in America. That we have unconsciously left God behind. Now, we haven’t consciously done it; we have unconsciously done it. You see, the text, you remember the text said that Jesus’ parents went a whole day’s journey not knowing that he wasn’t with them. They didn’t consciously leave him behind. (Well) It was unconscious; went a whole day and didn’t even know it. It wasn’t a conscious process. You see, we didn’t grow up and say, “Now, goodbye God, we’re going to leave you now.” The materialism in America has been an unconscious thing. Since the rise of the Industrial Revolution in England, and then the invention of all of our gadgets and contrivances and all of the things and modern conveniences—we unconsciously left God behind. We didn’t mean to do it.
:::::''... we need [various worldly things] ; all of that’s important to live. But whenever they become substitutes for God, (Yes) they become injurious. (Amen)
:::::''... And may I say to you this morning, (Lord help him) that none of these things can ever be real substitutes for God.
:::::''... And I say to you this morning in conclusion (Lord have mercy) that I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in things. I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in gadgets and contrivances. As a young man with most of my life ahead of me, I decided early (Oh yeah) to give my life to something eternal and absolute. (All right) Not to these little gods that are here today and gone tomorrow, (Come on) but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Amen, Amen)

:::::''Not in the little gods that can be with us in a few moments of prosperity, (Yes) but in the God who walks with us through the valley of the shadow of death, (That’s right) and causes us to fear no evil. (All right) That’s the God. (Come on)
:::::... [after this it gets a bit psychedelic;p]:::::

i also found the speech here, on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uwi_HJUbJUMC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=%22The+most+dangerous+type+of+atheism+is+not+theoretical+atheism,+but+practical+atheism%22&source=bl&ots=YSE23jsEZY&sig=b6e3gkMcP-b_36uMuaIKNtjyiWw&hl=en&ei=9H8nTuGLEZCgtwfvhdG7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20most%20dangerous%20type%20of%20atheism%20is%20not%20theoretical%20atheism%2C%20but%20practical%20atheism%22&f=false

so now it's well sourced, but i think MLK Jr is talking about materialism rather than modern atheism. i think it's explicit, even. "That's a dangerous type of atheism." would seem to imply logically that there are benign forms of atheism, or at least neutral, morally.

MLK Jr isn't really discussing atheism, at all. the insinuation that MLK Jr was particularly concerned with atheism is, afaik, unfounded, so the quote is still mis-attributed; it's also misapplied as an argument. but i would like to see any relevant documentation, otherwise. it think it sounds too much like original research, but maybe that's the point of this wiki;p

== Requested Addition ==

I have written this paragraph and recommend its incorporation in the article as well as [[Atheism and uncharitableness|this article]]:

A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor [[Robert Putnam]] found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> The study revealed that forty percent of [[service of worship|worship service]] attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref>

===References===
{{reflist}}

== Conspiring Atheists ==

Atheists supposedly conspired against Youtube Users, Nephilimfree, and ShockofGod. The medium claim to be used is voxli, more specificlly the following website, [http://www.voxli.com/pointmanzero]

Big Bang theory

2011-07-07T21:22:13Z

Cacterpus: Undo revision 886996 by VPropp (talk)

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated by expanding into space from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the three possible geometries of the universe depend on the value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]

The '''Big Bang theory''' is a scientific theory used to account for the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe.

Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html WMAP Cosmology 101: Age of the Universe]</ref> (although this number has changed several times throughout recent history). It was first proposed by the Catholic priest [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was supposedly observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable [[cosmic microwave background|microwave background radiation (or CMBR)]]. This radiation was allegedly discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]]; they claimed that it was found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. In other words, the Big Bang describes the expansion of space and time. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have allegedly corroborated these claims. Atheists claim that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], for which there is only observational evidence but no experimental evidence.

Scientists refer to the theoretical exact moment the Big Bang supposedly began as t=0 ("t" standing for "time"). At this time, according to their theory all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point (a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small). A burst of energy known as the Big Bang is claimed to have issued forth, and the universe began.<ref>http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm</ref> 1.0×10-43 seconds later, the force of gravity separated from the other forces.<ref>http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/History_of_Time_and_Life/content/BigBang.htm</ref>

In 2006, researchers used the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (launched by NASA in 2001) to measure variations in the cosmic microwave background (a "faint glow which permeates the universe"). According to these measurements, the universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old, "give or take a few hundred-thousand years".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188142,00.html</ref>

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Some creationists argue that the '''Big Bang theory''' is part of an effort to deny [[God's]] creation of all of existence. Christian physicists, such as Dr. John Hartnett,<ref>http://creation.com/starlight-and-time-a-further-breakthrough</ref> have noted that the Big Bang theory was constructed to account for serious pitfalls to the [[theory of evolution]], particularly the needed timescale of billions of years, amply contradicted by terrestrial and astronomical evidence. Thus, the big bang is trotted out by [[atheist]] evolutionists to silence [[creationist]] opponents, even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> In addition, [[young earth creationism]] holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

He further discusses the many theories that have been proposed to counter the Big Bang Theory due to its conclusion that there is a beginning or origin of creation. These additional theories have been broken down to still revert to a beginning. This in essence tries to proves a divine power or creator, which frustrates the many atheistic scientists that are trying to prove that God does not exist, including well known physicist [[Stephen Hawking]]. <ref>Stephen Hawking, ''A Brief History of Time.''</ref>

It should be noted though that if the Big Bang happened, then due to relativistic time dilation, it would not matter if the universe was created in 13.7 billion years old or 6 days as depending on ones reference frame it could have been created in both 13.7 billion years and 6 days due to time warpage. Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli astrophysicist, has put forwards models to this effect. In them he demonstrates that if the age of the universe according to evolutionists is divided by the big bang expansion factor that the resulting time is almost exactly 6 days. <ref> http://www.holycrossmonastery.org/articles/science/universe.htm </ref> Intriguingly he also calculates that due to the rate at which the expansion was said to have slowed according to the Big Bang theory each significant eras according to the time scale of evolutionists correspond to six individual twenty-four hour days corresponding to the days of creation. Despite these numbers appearing in an astonishingly coincidental fashion from known figures put forward by secular science, atheistic scientists do not comment on the coincidence.

== Scientific Criticism ==
It should be noted that the Big Bang theory has received criticism because it ignores the theory of an oscillating universe. Also, no first cause from the Big Bang has ever been successfully identified. Furthermore, critics of the Big Bang point out that not everything in the universe is actually moving apart from everything else as some galaxies have collided with other galaxies in the past, although this could be explained through understanding of classical mechanics.

The big bang theory is entirely unable to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry. If the big bang theory did happen as they say, matter and antimatter would have been created in equal quantities. When antimatter was first discovered in the 1930's, scientists immediately began looking for traces of it in the universe. No traces have been found except what we produce in particle accelerators and positrons produced by a type of radiation called positron emission. This asymmetry means that the big bang theory would have had to violate the laws of physics, since matter would have had to be produced without its antimatter partner, which violates the laws of conservation of electric charge and mass. There was some excitement in the 1970's about electroweak symmetry breaking as a method by which the matter was "preferred" over antimatter, but the infrequency of the weak force made them conclude this was impossible.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
Many have dissented from the theory, including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, an ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the Big Bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482.900</ref>

The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

== The Horizon Problem ==
The [[horizon problem]] is an argument against the Big Bang theory.
As [[Jason Lisle]] explains:
{{quoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>}}

Recognizing this difficulty, physicist [[Alan Guth]] conjured an explanation he named [[cosmic inflation]].
According to this claim, during the universe's first 10-35 of a second, a period of extremely rapid, exponential inflation occurred, expanding the universe by a factor of at least 1026.
It would be the equivalent of taking a pea and expanding it to the size of our solar system in a time less than a millionth of a blink of an eye.
If this occurred, it would mathematically allow for the uniformity of the [[CMBR]] - the vast distances were in thermodynamical contact before the rapid inflation.<ref>Castelvecchi, Davide, [http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000045 The Growth of Inflation] ''Symmetry'', 1(2), December 2004, p.12-17</ref><ref>Hinshaw, Gary, [http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24768 WMAP data put cosmic inflation to the test], 3rd May, 2006 (PhysicsWorld.com).</ref>
However, no mechanism that would cause this sudden expansion is known, and inflation remains, at present, entirely speculative.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Big Bang theory

2011-07-07T20:58:36Z

Cacterpus: Undo revision 886793 by Aschlafly (talk)

Age of the Earth

2011-07-07T02:50:29Z

Cacterpus:

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. This subject still causes debate today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism| young-Earth scientists]], who see much evidence that the Earth is only about 6,000 or so years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] and [[Atheism|atheistic scientists]], who show through scientific evidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> There is much scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|which points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. For example, in 2009, the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]''.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history, humans of many backgrounds viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

Similarly, people such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus held the Earth to be 6,000 years old.<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on a [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young-Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], whilst not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates somehow remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- [[atheists]] insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on an implausible assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF). <ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Linus Pauling

2011-07-07T02:47:57Z

Cacterpus:

'''Linus Pauling''' (1901 - 1994) was a renowned chemist, biologist, and medical researcher as well as an advocate in later life for nuclear weapon control and vitamin C use. Linus Pauling was also an atheist.

In 1954 he was awarded the [[Nobel Prize]] in Chemistry for his work describing the nature of chemical bonds. He also made important contributions to crystal and protein structure determination. Pauling received the [[Nobel Peace Prize]] in 1962 for his campaign against above-ground nuclear testing, and is the only person to win two Nobel prizes that were not shared with another recipient. Pauling later became an advocate for [[Vitamin C]] usage, writing his popular book ''How to Live Longer and Feel Better'' while well into his 80's. Although it was not his field, Pauling believed that Vitamin C usage could help to ward off and decrease the severity of common colds and in large dosages could help to fight cancer. Pauling himself lived to age 93 before succumbing to [[prostate cancer]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pauling, Linus}}

[[Category:Chemists]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Chemistry]]

Chemistry

2011-07-07T02:40:06Z

Cacterpus:

'''Chemistry''' (The origin of the word is undetermined) is the study of structure, composition, and properties of matter, as well as the interactions of chemical elements and compounds. Along with [[physics]], chemistry is one of the physical sciences. Chemistry is the modern counterpart to [[alchemy]]. Chemistry be divided into several sub-branches.

== Basic Concepts ==

Each Discipline of Chemistry has specific concepts that relate to it, however there are some concepts that are universal to the study of Chemistry, some of which are below:

=== Element ===

{{main|Element}}
An Element is a single type of [[atom]], and is defined by its [[Atomic Number]], or the number of protons present in the [[nucleus]] of the atom. All known elements are grouped together in the [[Periodic table of the elements]].

=== Atom ===

{{main|Atom}}
An atom is a particle of matter indivisible by chemical means [1] which form the building blocks of molecules.
In the atomic [[nucleus]] there are positively charged [[protons]] and electrically neutral [[neutrons]]. Spinning around the nucleus are negatively charged [[electrons]].

=== Molecule ===

{{main|Molecule}}
A molecule is an electronically neutral grouping of two or more atoms by [[covalent bonds]]. A molecule may contain more than one element, although this case is generally referred to as a [[compound]].

== Disciplines of Chemistry ==

* [[Organic chemistry]]- The study of chemical compounds containing [[carbon]]
* [[Inorganic chemistry]]- The study of [[inorganic compounds]]
* [[Physical chemistry]]- The application of [[Physics]] to chemical compounds and systems
* [[Analytic chemistry]]- The study of chemical composition
* [[Biochemistry]]- The study of the chemical processes in cells
* [[Supramolecular chemistry]]- The study of non covalent bonding interactions between molecules

== Notable Chemists ==

* [[Antoine Lavoisier]]
* [[Dmitri Mendelelev]]
* [[Michael Faraday]]
* [[Linus Pauling]]
* [[Alfred Nobel]]
* [[Izaak Kolthoff]]
== See Also ==
*[[Chemistry terms]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Big Bang theory

2011-07-07T02:38:42Z

Cacterpus: