Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2007-08-24T02:49:00Z

CastleVania:

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Why don't you delete the recently added article about [[Woody Allen]]? ==
That article is just great. Really "nuanced". It is a shining example of a great contribution to this site. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:There is a difference between a biography and a piece dealing with opinion information. I believe if you were to create small biographies on notable people that you would not see your work removed. I also believe that you are probably aware of the difference, but are complaining simply because you do not like it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't disagree with you. Sysop Conservative originally stated that my article was not "nuanced". By pointing out some articles that are very small, incomplete and lop-sided I was trying to show that writing an "un-nuanced" article was not cause for deletion, it is cause for editing. Also, this particular article on Woody Allen is only a biography in disguise. When the only thing you can highlight about the life and career of a celebrated and revered actor, writer and director is that he married his 27 years old adopted daughter, it is an opinion piece. Respectfully [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:::Woody Allen is an important biographical figure and isn't going to be deleted (of course). The beauty of this site is that you can add Woody's accomplishments in other areas and fill out his biopgraphy. But please understand as well that in a site that wishes to provide a family values environment, that Woody's conduct that could be considered to have gone over that line is fair game. On the other hand, articles that by their very nature deal with opinion information can be held to a different standard. Conservative is a trusted and respected Sysop who has many thousands of edits and has contributed greatly to the Conservapedia site. It may be best to work with what he told you to create an article that can address his concerns. And, as you also see, your concerns are being taken seriously. A number of important Sysops have given their input, and TK has even tried to email you your original work. While it is sometimes difficult, the key is not to take the article removal personally, but to work with the information you have been given to produce a more universally accepted product. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== spammer.. ==

new user:liberalsrulelol
created offensive spam article "Horus"
--[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:48, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, is this the right way to report spam? Seemed to be but I'm not sure. --[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2007-08-24T02:48:01Z

CastleVania: /* spammer.. */

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2007-08-24T02:47:47Z

CastleVania: spammer..

Talk:Tea

2007-08-24T02:20:02Z

CastleVania:

I suggest we remove the section on "making tea." It discusses just one method of traditional British tea-making and some social conventions surrounding it. Unless combined with a discussion of tea-making methods and customs from around the world, this out-of-context, esoteric tidbit seems rather silly. TK: I apologize for not discussing the removal first; I noticed that the contributor who originally created the section has been lifetime-banned so I figured this was "spamesque" and warranted quick removal. Any thoughts? --[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 20:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

*My thoughts are, what you have seen happen. ;-) I cleaned up that silly how to make tea, proscribed it as the traditional method, and left the door open for other conventions of making it, if someone feels the need. The original creator is indeed long gone, however it has also been reviewed by a dozen others as well...disturbing. Thanks for noticing it! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::When I saw that you reverted my deletion, I didn't notice that you took out the really obnoxious sentences. Much better now! --[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

*Always better to look, lol. I have my ways! Now, of course I didn't license you to use my bullet point, so kindly cease! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:17, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::Ahh, didn't realize it was a super luxury proprietary TK bullet point. :) --[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Vampire

2007-08-24T02:15:44Z

CastleVania: redundancy (and poor grammar).. no need to say that "vampires aren't real" when the first sentence says they're mythological

A '''Vampire''' is a mythological creature who drinks the blood of living human beings for sustenance.

[[category:mythology]]

Talk:Tea

2007-08-24T02:11:50Z

CastleVania:

I suggest we remove the section on "making tea." It discusses just one method of traditional British tea-making and some social conventions surrounding it. Unless combined with a discussion of tea-making methods and customs from around the world, this out-of-context, esoteric tidbit seems rather silly. TK: I apologize for not discussing the removal first; I noticed that the contributor who originally created the section has been lifetime-banned so I figured this was "spamesque" and warranted quick removal. Any thoughts? --[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 20:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

*My thoughts are, what you have seen happen. ;-) I cleaned up that silly how to make tea, proscribed it as the traditional method, and left the door open for other conventions of making it, if someone feels the need. The original creator is indeed long gone, however it has also been reviewed by a dozen others as well...disturbing. Thanks for noticing it! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

**When I saw that you reverted my deletion, I didn't notice that you took out the really obnoxious sentences. Much better now! --[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

West Virginia

2007-08-24T00:35:05Z

CastleVania:

[[Image:West-virginia.gif|right|thumb|Map of West Virginia]]
[[Image:West_Virginia_State_Flag.gif|thumb|right|The state flag of West Virginia]]

'''West Virginia''' became the thirty-fifth state on June 20, 1863, after separating from [[Virginia]] during the [[American Civil War]]. Its official nickname is "The Mountain State," which is apt considering that West Virginia has the highest mean elevation of any state east of the Mississippi River. West Virginians commonly refer to themselves as Mountaineers. The team name of the state's flagship university-- West Virginia University-- is also the Mountaineers. "Montani semper libre," the state's slogan, means "Mountaineers will always be free."

West Virginia is comprised of 55 counties lying between the Ohio River on the west and the high Allegheny ridges of the Appalachian Mountains on the East. The northern border is formed by the North Branch Potomac River, the southwestern corner of Pennsylvania, and the Ohio River. Its odd shape and long panhandles are the result of irregular borders with other states that follow rivers and ridges. A Mountaineer once quipped, "It is a pretty good state for the shape it's in."

The population is 1,818,470.[http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54000.html]

The State Flower is the Rhododendron; the State Tree is the Sugar Maple; the State Bird is the Cardinal; and the State Animal is the Black Bear.

The capital city, [[Charleston]], has a population of 51,394[http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54/5414600.html] and is located on the Kanawha River in the south-central region of the state known as "Metro Valley." In addition to Charleston, there are nine other metropolitan areas in West Virginia(some include parts of bordering states):

* Charleston, WV
* Cumberland, MD-WV
* Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV
* Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
* Morgantown, WV
* Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH
* Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH
* Wheeling, WV-OH
* Winchester, VA-WV

The highest elevation in West Virginia is Spruce Knob in Pendleton County at 4,862 feet.

West Virginia is about 80% forested and supports a strong timber industry. It is also one of the leading [[coal]] producing states, in past decades often rotating with [[Kentucky]] as the number one coal producer. [[Wyoming]] has recently surpassed both states as the #1 coal producer. West Virginia is also a productive agricultural state, and was a leader in steel and chemical production in the early and mid 20th century.

Because of the state's rugged terrain and vast wildlands, it is a mecca for campers, fisherman, hunters, spleunkers, whitewater rafters, hang gliders, and hikers.

The state has been the birthplace of many notable men and woman, including Pearl S. Buck, General Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson, General Chuck Yeager, John Henry, Don Knotts, and Senator Robert C. Byrd.

Since 1928, West Virginia has usually voted for Democratic presidential candidates and congressional representatives, with the notable exceptions of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, and again in 2000, when a Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush, won the state's 5 electoral votes. President Bush won West Virginia again in 2004.

'''West Virginia''' was granted statehood during the [[American Civil War]]. The Commonwealth of [[Virginia]], which had since colonial times included the counties that now comprise West Virginia, voted to secede from the Union; however, the counties in western Virginia were more sympathetic to the Union. To avoid seceding from the Union, these counties seceded from Virginia in 1861 in order remain part of the United States. President Lincoln granted the counties of Western Virginia formal statehood in 1863.

Tourism brochures, driver's licenses, license plates, and road signs describe West Virginia with the slogan "Wild and Wonderful." John Denver's hit song 'Country Roads' has helped make West Virginia a symbol of Appalachian life throughout the world.

{{USstates}}
[[Category:US state]]

2007-05-30T16:43:00Z

CastleVania: New page: I'm confused. I don't think I re-added anything that you removed.. I removed a reference cited to unknownnews.org as POV, and I changed STIs to STDs because the latter is more frequently ...

Abstinence

2007-05-30T02:31:03Z

CastleVania: RV: liberal POV removed. RV to earlier version by CastleVania

The word '''abstinence''' means refraining from indulging in an appetite.

In the 1800s and 1900s, the word "abstinence," used without other explanation, almost always meant abstinence from alcohol. The "abstinence movement," for example, led to the establishment of [[prohibition]]. ''Teetotaler'' mean someone who advocated "total abstinence," rather than just moderation.

Starting in about the 1990s, "abstinence" has been more commonly used in the context of abstinence from [[sexual]] intercourse, particularly in the United States in the context of [[sex]] education for adolescents. Thus, for example, we read in a 2002 White House policy statement:
:..."the goal of Federal policy should be to emphasize abstinence as the only certain way to avoid both unintended pregnancies and STDs."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/welfare-book-06.html WORKING TOWARD INDEPENDENCE] Encourage Abstinence and Prevent Teen Pregnancy, White House News and Policies, February 2002</ref>

Studies of the effectiveness of abstinence programs have yielded differing conclusions. A 2004 study by the Heritage Foundation (a self-described "conservative think-tank")<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/about/ The Heritage Foundation: Our Mission] "Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."</ref> found that virginity pledges significantly reduce premarital sex without putting backsliders at risk.<ref> Teens Who Make Virginity Pledges Have Substantially Improved Life Outcomes
by Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Jennifer A. Marshall
Center for Data Analysis Report #04-07 [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda04-07.cfm] </ref> A 2007 study by Mathematica Policy Research (a self-described "nonpartisan research firm") found that "the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth." But, like Heritage, it found that "youth in these programs were no more likely to have unprotected sex."<ref>[http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp Impacts of Four Abstinence Education Programs]</ref><ref>
$1bn 'don't have sex' campaign a flop as research shows teenagers ignore lessons, The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2058066,00.html]</ref>

The abstinence policy of the Bush administration has also been heavily criticized by liberals as being unrealistic, ignoring the real issues and misleading. But this ignores the fact that abstinent teens don't get STDs or become pregnant. <ref>Bush "abstinence only" program lies to kids about sex, HIV dangers[http://www.unknownnews.org/04121402abstinence.html]</ref>

The resignation of [[Randall Tobias]], appointed by [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W Bush]] to promote abstinence education and responsible for enforcing a U.S. global [[AIDS]] policy requiring recipients to swear they oppose prostitution and sex trafficking, after it was discovered he had been a customer of an escort service in Washington, D.C. whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a [[prostitution]] operation, shows how challenging abstinence can be. <ref> http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/senior_official.html</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

Controlled Substances Act

2007-05-30T02:04:24Z

CastleVania:

In the US, the '''Controlled Substances Act''' regulates [[pharmaceutical]]s. It divides [[drug]]s into classes called schedules and established rules for enforcement of the schedules.

==Drug Schedules==

Required findings as followed:

===Schedule I.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples of Schedule I drugs include heroin and other opiates, methampethines, MDMA (ecstasy), [[LSD]], [[marijuana]], and mescaline.

===Schedule II.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule II drugs include some opiate pain medications (e.g., morphine, methadone), cocaine (legal as a topical surgical anesthetic only), Ritalin, amphetamines, opium, and barbiturates.

===Schedule III.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychologicaldependence.

Anabolic steroids, ketamine, and certain pain and stimulant medications are listed on Schedule III.

===Schedule IV.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

Examples of Schedule IV substances include many [[psychotropic medication]]s (e.g., Xanax, Ativan, Provigil), diet drugs (e.g., Redux), rohypnol, and Ambien.

===Schedule V.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Substances on Schedule V primarily include medications containing smaller doses of opiates (e.g., cough syrups).

==Constitutionality==

The constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act has been disputed. In 1972, the [[National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse]], commissioned by President [[Richard Nixon]], reported questioned whether the Act has violated various constitutional limitation on federal power. Nixon and the Congress ignored the committee's findings and the Act was implemented anyways. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided in case ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', in a 6-3 decision that the Controlled Substance Act did not violate the [[Commerce Clause]] in [[United States Constitution]].

==References==
<references/>
[http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html Controlled Substances Act from U.S. DEA website]

[[Category:United States law]]

Controlled Substances Act

2007-05-30T02:04:02Z

CastleVania:

In the US, the '''Controlled Substances Act''' regulates [[pharmaceutical]]s. It divides [[drug]]s into classes called schedules and established rules for enforcement of the schedules.

==Drug Schedules==

Required findings as followed:

===Schedule I.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples of Schedule I drugs include heroin and other opiates, methampethines, MDMA (ecstasy), [[LSD]], [[marijuana]], and mescaline.

===Schedule II.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule II drugs include some opiate pain medications (e.g., morphine, methadone), cocaine (as a topical surgical anesthetic only), Ritalin, amphetamines, opium, and barbiturates.

===Schedule III.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychologicaldependence.

Anabolic steroids, ketamine, and certain pain and stimulant medications are listed on Schedule III.

===Schedule IV.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

Examples of Schedule IV substances include many [[psychotropic medication]]s (e.g., Xanax, Ativan, Provigil), diet drugs (e.g., Redux), rohypnol, and Ambien.

===Schedule V.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Substances on Schedule V primarily include medications containing smaller doses of opiates (e.g., cough syrups).

==Constitutionality==

The constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act has been disputed. In 1972, the [[National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse]], commissioned by President [[Richard Nixon]], reported questioned whether the Act has violated various constitutional limitation on federal power. Nixon and the Congress ignored the committee's findings and the Act was implemented anyways. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided in case ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', in a 6-3 decision that the Controlled Substance Act did not violate the [[Commerce Clause]] in [[United States Constitution]].

==References==
<references/>
[http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html Controlled Substances Act from U.S. DEA website]

[[Category:United States law]]

2007-05-17T02:12:07Z

CastleVania: /* Theory 1 */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

: The stars that are 7000-8000 light years away, speaking relatively, are our close neighbors in the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter and contains about 100,000,000 stars. There are hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies (100,000,000,000+). The most distant light our telescopes have detected comes from recently discovered stars 13-14 billion light years away. That means that light has been traveling at 185,000 MILES PER SECOND for 14,000,000,000 years to reach us from those stars. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Einsteins Theory of Relativity explained how light appears to move at different speeds when the distance is great and the relative speeds are great as it often is in planetary physics. However, this in no way means that c is not a universal constant. Nothing exsists in nature with a real velocity that is relative to the distance it is being viewed.

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Um, No==

The problem discussed here is irrelevant if you think that, just maybe, the universe might be ''really'' old. As many sages far more sagacious than I have said, why would "God lie to us"? He apparently made a ''very'' old universe, from our perspective. Why are we to argue with the evidence? He ''expects'' us to figure this stuff out, and dwells in His joy when we do. With every advance, we get closer to knowing the Mind of God - the true goal of philosophy. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Hell

2007-05-16T21:22:34Z

CastleVania:

[[Image:Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Hell.jpg|right|300px|thumb|''Hell'', painted by [[Hieronymus Bosch]], part of ''[[The Garden of Earthly Delights]]''.]]
In the English translation of the [[Bible]]'s Old Testament, the word '''hell''' normally corresponds to the [[Hebrew]] ''sheol'', which was simply the place of the dead. But in the [[Greek]] [[New Testament]] the word used is either ''Gehenna'' (the garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where fires were kept eternally burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench) or ''Hades'', the [[Greek]]s' dark, gloomy underworld. The modern English word appears to derive most directly from "Holle" or "Hela" or "Hel", goddess of the dead in Germanic/Norse mythology. When the Anglo-Saxons converted to [[Christianity]], the existing word in the language was reused in this new context and applied to the meanings given above.

Etymology aside, hell is now known to be a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the [[sins]] they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth. According to Christianity, the only way to avoid hell is to know, love, and serve [[God]] and rely on His forgiveness. Even after 10,000 years in hell, the sinner has not even begun his punishment in the educationally hot fires. Separated from God, all that remains is despondence and fires and the devil.

The Christian and Muslim religious traditions often emphasize the ''Gehenna'' aspect: Hell is extremely hot and filled with fire and [[brimstone]]. Opinion varies on the question of whether, while hell itself is eternal, experience of it purges away the sins of sufferers to the point of eventual redemption. See [[purgatory]]. A minority of Christians do not believe in an eternal hell, believing instead that the souls of the wicked are annihilated. This view is referred to as Annihilationism.

[[Category:Religion]]