<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Cdizon</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Cdizon"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Cdizon"/>
	<updated>2026-10-01T05:38:29Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Solar_power&amp;diff=907355</id>
		<title>Solar power</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Solar_power&amp;diff=907355"/>
		<updated>2011-08-29T23:45:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: /* Distributed Generation */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Solar power''' typically refers to the production of electricity from light given off by the sun. The most common instance of this is the use of photovoltaic cells in solar panels, which have been employed on the small scale (e.g. solar powered calculators) and large scale (e.g. solar power plants, orbiting artificial satellites). Solar power is a renewable energy source, in contrast with [[fossil fuels]]. Solar power production via photovoltaic cells typically produces a less efficient conversion of energy into electricity compared to power production from the burning of fossil fuels, but with the abundance of solar rations available to Earth, this limited efficiency is normally inconsequential. The main drawback to using solar power as a principle energy source is the the inability to provide baseload power throughout the day and night: the sun cannot be guaranteed to shine every day, power is still in demand after the setting of the sun, and some areas of the world do not receive enough consistent sunlight to rely on solar power as a main energy source. Thus, solar power will, at least in the foreseeable future, not become a principle part of the world's energy production but may still be very useful in supplementing power demands in some parts of the world. Employment of small solar power arrays in areas that are rarely overcast (e.g. the American southwest) may allow some businesses to cheaply produce products and chemicals that require large electrical demand (e.g. the production of extremely pure hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolysis of water).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Grid Parity==&lt;br /&gt;
Grid parity refers to the point where power provided by solar panels (photovoltaic solar) is at the same or lower price of conventional power sources such as coal, natural gas or nuclear.  The price per watt of installed solar has been steadily falling while the price of other energy sources including wind power has been steadily rising.  A historic crossover with nuclear power occurred in 2010.  In regions with adequate sun exposure electricity can now be produced at a lower cost per kWh with PV solar than with nuclear power.  The price for a DIY residential grid-tie solar system can be as low as $2.50/w (2011), before subsidies or tax credits.  At this price the system would pay for itself in ~12 years, many utilities offer incentives that can lower payback to &amp;lt;4 years.  Most systems carry a 25-30 year warranty.  Due to the fact that most solar power is produced when electric demand is highest, between 3pm - 7pm many utilities actually benefit from paying their customers to install solar panels since most districts do not charge peak rates.  It can cost a major utility as much as $.50/kwh during peak demand while solar production credits are usually ~$.20/kwh.  Roof-top PV can be extremely cost-effective since no land needs to be purchased.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Distributed Generation==&lt;br /&gt;
Conventional sources of power generation are concentrated in power plants that range from 100MW to 1000MW.  Distributed Generation is the grid-tied production of electricity from smaller generators typically less than 100 kw.  Solar Power is an ideal source of energy for distributed generation.  Most residential rooftops are capable of supporting at least 3 kw of solar panels while many commercial warehouses can support several MW of solar PV.  In sunny regions of the US this is adequate to provide &amp;gt;50% of the electricity requirements for the average US household.  One major advantage to distributed generation is that it is consumed very close to where it is produced, this decreases the stress on America's electric grid which is already operating near capacity.  Germany is an example of how effective distributed generation can be adding 7 GW of solar power in 2010 alone, this is more electricity than is produced by a nuclear power plant.  Solar power often provides &amp;gt;10% of electricity in Germany during the day and doubled in capacity from 2009 to 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Global warming claims==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Liberal]]s often point to solar power as a way to &amp;quot;solve&amp;quot; global warming. This has several problems. Other than the fact that [[Counterexamples to Global Warming|the claim of global warming is dubious, to say the least]], solar power is not very efficient, giving much less energy than oil. Many liberals have tried to force solar power onto many areas, despite the fact that it would be very costly and would be much more inefficient than oil, for example. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:energy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Solar_power&amp;diff=907354</id>
		<title>Solar power</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Solar_power&amp;diff=907354"/>
		<updated>2011-08-29T23:31:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Solar power''' typically refers to the production of electricity from light given off by the sun. The most common instance of this is the use of photovoltaic cells in solar panels, which have been employed on the small scale (e.g. solar powered calculators) and large scale (e.g. solar power plants, orbiting artificial satellites). Solar power is a renewable energy source, in contrast with [[fossil fuels]]. Solar power production via photovoltaic cells typically produces a less efficient conversion of energy into electricity compared to power production from the burning of fossil fuels, but with the abundance of solar rations available to Earth, this limited efficiency is normally inconsequential. The main drawback to using solar power as a principle energy source is the the inability to provide baseload power throughout the day and night: the sun cannot be guaranteed to shine every day, power is still in demand after the setting of the sun, and some areas of the world do not receive enough consistent sunlight to rely on solar power as a main energy source. Thus, solar power will, at least in the foreseeable future, not become a principle part of the world's energy production but may still be very useful in supplementing power demands in some parts of the world. Employment of small solar power arrays in areas that are rarely overcast (e.g. the American southwest) may allow some businesses to cheaply produce products and chemicals that require large electrical demand (e.g. the production of extremely pure hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolysis of water).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Grid Parity==&lt;br /&gt;
Grid parity refers to the point where power provided by solar panels (photovoltaic solar) is at the same or lower price of conventional power sources such as coal, natural gas or nuclear.  The price per watt of installed solar has been steadily falling while the price of other energy sources including wind power has been steadily rising.  A historic crossover with nuclear power occurred in 2010.  In regions with adequate sun exposure electricity can now be produced at a lower cost per kWh with PV solar than with nuclear power.  The price for a DIY residential grid-tie solar system can be as low as $2.50/w (2011), before subsidies or tax credits.  At this price the system would pay for itself in ~12 years, many utilities offer incentives that can lower payback to &amp;lt;4 years.  Most systems carry a 25-30 year warranty.  Due to the fact that most solar power is produced when electric demand is highest, between 3pm - 7pm many utilities actually benefit from paying their customers to install solar panels since most districts do not charge peak rates.  It can cost a major utility as much as $.50/kwh during peak demand while solar production credits are usually ~$.20/kwh.  Roof-top PV can be extremely cost-effective since no land needs to be purchased.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Distributed Generation==&lt;br /&gt;
Conventional sources of power generation are concentrated in power plants that range from 100MW to 1000MW.  Distributed Generation is the grid-tied production of electricity from smaller generators typically less than 100 kw.  Solar Power is an ideal source of energy for distributed generation.  Most residential rooftops are capable of supporting at least 3 kw of solar panels while many commercial warehouses can support several MW of solar PV.  In sunny regions of the US this is adequate to provide &amp;gt;50% of the electricity requirements for the average US household.  One major advantage to distributed generation is that it is consumed very close to where it is produced, this decreases the stress on America's electric grid which is already operating near capacity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Global warming claims==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Liberal]]s often point to solar power as a way to &amp;quot;solve&amp;quot; global warming. This has several problems. Other than the fact that [[Counterexamples to Global Warming|the claim of global warming is dubious, to say the least]], solar power is not very efficient, giving much less energy than oil. Many liberals have tried to force solar power onto many areas, despite the fact that it would be very costly and would be much more inefficient than oil, for example. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:energy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780458</id>
		<title>Evolution and science</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780458"/>
		<updated>2010-05-22T15:13:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=1 cellpadding=3&lt;br /&gt;
| Evolution&lt;br /&gt;
| Science&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support for common descent from all scientific academies.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must command the consensus of the scientific community.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Every new fossil discovered tests evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
| Makes testable predictions&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains how natural selection is a form of design.&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Helping in fight against drug resistance disease&lt;br /&gt;
| Provides positive effects to society&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Supported almost entirely adherents to the scientific method&lt;br /&gt;
| Steps... Observation, Test, Hypothesis and Theory&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Tests of the Theory'''&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
A scientific theory must by definition be falsifiable.  It must make a prediction that can be shown through observation to be right or wrong.  The theory of evolution is arguably one of the most thoroughly tested theories.  Every excavation into ancient rock is a fresh opportunity to disprove the theory.  If a fossilized monkey were discovered in Jurassic Rock the theory of evolution would be on the block for a major revision.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780442</id>
		<title>Evolution and science</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780442"/>
		<updated>2010-05-22T14:57:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=1 cellpadding=3&lt;br /&gt;
| Evolution&lt;br /&gt;
| Science&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support for common descent from all scientific academies.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must command the consensus of the scientific community.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Every new fossil discovered tests evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
| Makes testable predictions&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains how natural selection is a form of design.&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Helping in fight against drug resistance disease&lt;br /&gt;
| Provides positive effects to society&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Supported almost entirely adherents to the scientific method&lt;br /&gt;
| Steps... Observation, Test, Hypothesis and Theory&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780440</id>
		<title>Evolution and science</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780440"/>
		<updated>2010-05-22T14:55:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=1 cellpadding=3&lt;br /&gt;
| Evolution&lt;br /&gt;
| Science&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support for common descent from all scientific academies.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must command the consensus of the scientific community.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Every new fossil discovered tests evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
| Makes testable predictions&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Cannot explain irreducible complexity, such as bacterial flagellum&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Helping in fight against drug resistance disease&lt;br /&gt;
| Provides positive effects to society&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Supported almost entirely adherents to the scientific method&lt;br /&gt;
| Steps... Observation, Test, Hypothesis and Theory&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780439</id>
		<title>Evolution and science</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780439"/>
		<updated>2010-05-22T14:54:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=1 cellpadding=3&lt;br /&gt;
| Evolution&lt;br /&gt;
| Science&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support for common descent from all scientific academies.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must command the consensus of the scientific community.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Every new fossil discovered tests evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
| Makes testable predictions&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Cannot explain irreducible complexity, such as bacterial flagellum&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Helping in fight against drug resistance disease&lt;br /&gt;
| Provides positive effects to society&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Supported almost entirely adherents to the scientific method&lt;br /&gt;
| Doesn't depend on ideology&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780436</id>
		<title>Evolution and science</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780436"/>
		<updated>2010-05-22T14:49:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=1 cellpadding=3&lt;br /&gt;
| Evolution&lt;br /&gt;
| Science&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support for common descent from all scientific academies.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must command the consensus of the scientific community.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Every new fossil discovered tests evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
| Makes testable predictions&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Cannot explain irreducible complexity, such as bacterial flagellum&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Leads to negative social effects, such as Nazism&lt;br /&gt;
| Provides positive effects to society&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Supported almost entirely by liberals and atheists&lt;br /&gt;
| Doesn't depend on ideology&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780435</id>
		<title>Evolution and science</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780435"/>
		<updated>2010-05-22T14:49:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=1 cellpadding=3&lt;br /&gt;
| Evolution&lt;br /&gt;
| Science&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support for common descent from all scientific academies.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must command the consensus of the scientific community.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Metaphysical research program&lt;br /&gt;
| Makes testable predictions&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Cannot explain irreducible complexity, such as bacterial flagellum&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Leads to negative social effects, such as Nazism&lt;br /&gt;
| Provides positive effects to society&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Supported almost entirely by liberals and atheists&lt;br /&gt;
| Doesn't depend on ideology&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780433</id>
		<title>Evolution and science</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780433"/>
		<updated>2010-05-22T14:47:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=1 cellpadding=3&lt;br /&gt;
| Evolution&lt;br /&gt;
| Science&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| There is little consensus on how evolution occurred&lt;br /&gt;
| Support for common descent from all scientific academies.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Metaphysical research program&lt;br /&gt;
| Makes testable predictions&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Cannot explain irreducible complexity, such as bacterial flagellum&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Leads to negative social effects, such as Nazism&lt;br /&gt;
| Provides positive effects to society&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Supported almost entirely by liberals and atheists&lt;br /&gt;
| Doesn't depend on ideology&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780428</id>
		<title>Evolution and science</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&amp;diff=780428"/>
		<updated>2010-05-22T14:38:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=1 cellpadding=3&lt;br /&gt;
| Evolution&lt;br /&gt;
| Science&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| There is little consensus on how evolution occurred&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific theories must command the consensus of the scientific community&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Relies for support on fraud and hoaxes&lt;br /&gt;
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Metaphysical research program&lt;br /&gt;
| Makes testable predictions&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Cannot explain irreducible complexity, such as bacterial flagellum&lt;br /&gt;
| Explains irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Leads to negative social effects, such as Nazism&lt;br /&gt;
| Provides positive effects to society&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Supported almost entirely by liberals and atheists&lt;br /&gt;
| Doesn't depend on ideology&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Species&amp;diff=509445</id>
		<title>Species</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Species&amp;diff=509445"/>
		<updated>2008-09-02T19:26:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: /* The origin of species */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''species''' is a group of living beings or organisms having sufficient genetic similarity to be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. [http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-S/species.html Holgrem Lab], Northwestern University, Illinois &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, a [[tiger]] and a [[clam]] are different species, because they cannot mate. A [[German Shepherd]] and a [[Beagle]] can mate, because they are different breeds within one species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the definition of &amp;quot;species&amp;quot; has changed over time and is sometimes problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
For example, there are cases where two species are not capable of interbreeding, but each is capable of interbreeding with a third species.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spark&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/speciation/section1.html Speciation] (SparkNotes)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, a &amp;quot;species&amp;quot; is sometimes defined in such a way that groups of creatures that do not ''naturally'' interbreed (perhaps because of geological isolation) are classified as separate species despite the fact that they ''can'' interbreed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spark&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, many extinct species known only from fossils have been given species names, despite the impossibility of determining their capability of interbreeding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The origin of species==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Linnaeus]] originally intended &amp;quot;species&amp;quot; to refer to the biblical creation &amp;quot;[[baramin|kinds]]&amp;quot;, but the modern definitions of species do not match the biblical kinds.&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, many Christians and many evolutionists believe that the idea of new species developing is inconsistent with the Bible.&lt;br /&gt;
However, creationary scientists accept that speciation has been observed, although they deny that speciation can lead to the development of completely new features as predicted by evolutionists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, a team of researchers lead by Richard Lenski captured the most dramatic example of species adaptation in a Laboratory setting.  After over 33,000 generations a strain of E. coli bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate.  This event was particularly significant as the inability to metabolize citrate was one of the defining characteristics of E. Coli.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/overview.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote ''The Origin of Species'' {{years ago | 1859}} years ago, hoping to account for the diversity of plant and animal life with an entirely [[naturalistic]] explanation (see [[Theory of evolution]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ring Species==&lt;br /&gt;
This is a phenomenon which occurs when a contiguous lineage ancestors co-exist at the same time.  Unlike most species whose direct ancestral species are now extinct, the ancestral species of a ring species still survive.  The existence of ring species make it more difficult to define what a species is.  For example, A can breed with B can breed with C can breed with D... however D cannot breed with A.  The most prominent example of a ring species is the Larus Gull which resides in the north Atlantic.  Neighboring species interbreed counter-clockwise around the arctic, however this ability to interbreed terminates near Britain with the Herring Gull and Lesser Black-Backed Gull.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harrison, Peter (1988): Seabirds (2nd ed.). Christopher Helm, London ISBN 0-7470-1410-8&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Note==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Biological classification]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Species&amp;diff=509436</id>
		<title>Species</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Species&amp;diff=509436"/>
		<updated>2008-09-02T19:10:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''species''' is a group of living beings or organisms having sufficient genetic similarity to be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. [http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-S/species.html Holgrem Lab], Northwestern University, Illinois &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, a [[tiger]] and a [[clam]] are different species, because they cannot mate. A [[German Shepherd]] and a [[Beagle]] can mate, because they are different breeds within one species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the definition of &amp;quot;species&amp;quot; has changed over time and is sometimes problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
For example, there are cases where two species are not capable of interbreeding, but each is capable of interbreeding with a third species.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spark&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/speciation/section1.html Speciation] (SparkNotes)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, a &amp;quot;species&amp;quot; is sometimes defined in such a way that groups of creatures that do not ''naturally'' interbreed (perhaps because of geological isolation) are classified as separate species despite the fact that they ''can'' interbreed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spark&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, many extinct species known only from fossils have been given species names, despite the impossibility of determining their capability of interbreeding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The origin of species==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Linnaeus]] originally intended &amp;quot;species&amp;quot; to refer to the biblical creation &amp;quot;[[baramin|kinds]]&amp;quot;, but the modern definitions of species do not match the biblical kinds.&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, many Christians and many evolutionists believe that the idea of new species developing is inconsistent with the Bible.&lt;br /&gt;
However, creationary scientists accept that speciation has been observed, although they deny that speciation can lead to the development of completely new features as predicted by evolutionists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote ''The Origin of Species'' {{years ago | 1859}} years ago, hoping to account for the diversity of plant and animal life with an entirely [[naturalistic]] explanation (see [[Theory of evolution]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ring Species==&lt;br /&gt;
This is a phenomenon which occurs when a contiguous lineage ancestors co-exist at the same time.  Unlike most species whose direct ancestral species are now extinct, the ancestral species of a ring species still survive.  The existence of ring species make it more difficult to define what a species is.  For example, A can breed with B can breed with C can breed with D... however D cannot breed with A.  The most prominent example of a ring species is the Larus Gull which resides in the north Atlantic.  Neighboring species interbreed counter-clockwise around the arctic, however this ability to interbreed terminates near Britain with the Herring Gull and Lesser Black-Backed Gull.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harrison, Peter (1988): Seabirds (2nd ed.). Christopher Helm, London ISBN 0-7470-1410-8&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Note==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Biological classification]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abstinence_education&amp;diff=509427</id>
		<title>Abstinence education</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abstinence_education&amp;diff=509427"/>
		<updated>2008-09-02T18:50:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Abstinence education''' encourages unmarried teens to refrain from premarital sex, for reasons of emotional, spiritual and physical health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Abstinence Programs Show Promise in Reducing Sexual Activity and Pregnancy Among Teens,&amp;quot; an article printed by Family Research Council, states that an abstinence program for girls in the Washington D.C. area called [[Best Friends]] reported only one out of 400 girls become pregnant since the program began (1). Between 20 and 70 pregnancies are common for the same sized group of fifth to ninth grade girls in the District of Columbia&amp;quot; (1). Upon adopting an abstinence-only curriculum by Teen-Aid, Inc. entitled &amp;quot;Sexuality, Commitment, and Family&amp;quot;, at San Marcos Junior High in San Marcos, California, only 20 girls became pregnant in two years compared to 147 girls the year before (1). Nathan Hale Middle School in a Chicago suburb had a number of already pregnant girls at which time they adopted an abstinence program. Many parents were skeptical until the school graduated three pregnancy-free classes in a row (2). &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/hdm/00-02-08.htm] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The US lags far behind other industrialized countries with more comprehensive sex education in the number of teen pregnancies.  The teen pregnancy rate in the US is four time that of France where condoms are given to students as a part of sexual education.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Education]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&amp;diff=431100</id>
		<title>Talk:Faith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&amp;diff=431100"/>
		<updated>2008-04-15T02:44:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: /* (Lack of?) Faith in Science */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Reversion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything.  &amp;quot;Faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's moronic.  Very simply defined, the English word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof.  For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will.  I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.)  Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist.  If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone.  Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith.  Not even English can describe it well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&amp;amp;version=kjv&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
   1.  conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it&lt;br /&gt;
         1. relating to God&lt;br /&gt;
               1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ &lt;br /&gt;
         2. relating to Christ&lt;br /&gt;
               1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God &lt;br /&gt;
         3. the religious beliefs of Christians&lt;br /&gt;
         4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same &lt;br /&gt;
   2. fidelity, faithfulness&lt;br /&gt;
         1. the character of one who can be relied on &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept.  Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it.  For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not  have faith that it will send him to heaven.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Sources:''' &amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Heritage Dictionary==&lt;br /&gt;
says:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase &amp;quot;the Muslim faith,&amp;quot; it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that &amp;quot;The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called &amp;quot;New Age&amp;quot; religions, such as Wicca.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian.  The entry demonstrates that.  Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning.  Muslims &amp;quot;submit&amp;quot; to Allah rather than have faith in Allah.  The very reason for an entry here is to be precise.  Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic &amp;quot;better-ness?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If the page is to describe Faith as a &amp;quot;historically uniquely Christian&amp;quot; term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect.  Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise.  Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness.  An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary.  You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references.  If you think there is a Muslim &amp;quot;faith in Allah,&amp;quot; then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted.  By the way, the Koran does not support your view.  It calls for &amp;quot;submission to Allah.&amp;quot;  The term &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I take exception to the word &amp;quot;merely.&amp;quot; It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::AHD says that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; has five meanings. People who refer to &amp;quot;the Muslim faith&amp;quot; are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying &amp;quot;Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::To insist on &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails.  [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity?  That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic.   It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is Christian?  If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe.  If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact.  Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the &amp;quot;original&amp;quot; meaning of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is Christian, but current modern usage is different.  After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs.  True?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers.  Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning &amp;quot;to trust&amp;quot;, how can the original meaning be purely Christian?  Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot;.  Should we remove it?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Re: faith in other religions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam.  A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam.  Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah?  That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion.  Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable.  --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; and the Christian concept of &amp;quot;faith?&amp;quot; It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as &amp;quot;Defender of the Faithful,&amp;quot; and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as &amp;quot;Infidels&amp;quot; (i.e. &amp;quot;Unfaithful&amp;quot;), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
******Re: claim that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; in religious texts******&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&amp;amp;isindex=3982&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&amp;amp;searchmode=none&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry?  You keep falling back on the &amp;quot;Faith is Christian&amp;quot; concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise.  Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this &amp;quot;Conservapedia&amp;quot; just a &amp;quot;Schlaflyapedia&amp;quot; documenting your opinions rather than facts?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unlocking Faith==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is time we unlocked this entry.  It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless.  It is in desperate need of editing.  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith is NOT unique ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To say that the concept of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity.  To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian &amp;quot;Faith&amp;quot; by stating that they offer &amp;quot;no proof&amp;quot; that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept.  However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; IS unique to Christianity.  A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book.  That is hardly proof.  Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof.  In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, proof can be clearly offered.  To begin with, the author of the locked &amp;quot;article&amp;quot; on Faith suggests that &amp;quot;submission&amp;quot; to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith.  However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of &amp;quot;pietas,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;piety,&amp;quot; which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods.  A note of the importance of &amp;quot;pietas&amp;quot; in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to  Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues.  Among them, &amp;quot;pietas&amp;quot; was prominently figured.  (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg).  A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm).  The third book of Odes makes several mentions of &amp;quot;faithless foes&amp;quot; - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious.  Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance &amp;amp; role of the Gods in daily life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I insist not only that the article on be &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia.  You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts.  However, since often the facts include a &amp;quot;bias&amp;quot; against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts.  Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Right something trustworthy '''CANNOT''' be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard. {{unsigned|Cal05000}}&lt;br /&gt;
:: I disagree that trustworthy and biased are mutually exclusive.  However, I  agree that faith is not a uniquely Christian concept.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(reset)The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is generally considered to contain the greatest chapter regarding &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; in the New Testament. It points the early church, the fledgling Christians, towards the men and women of the Old Testament - Jews - and holds them up as true examples of real faith: after all, they didn't have any of the later &amp;quot;proofs&amp;quot; that Jesus demonstrated, they didn't have the &amp;quot;pouring out of the Holy Spirit&amp;quot;, they never saw any &amp;quot;substance&amp;quot; of what they believed in and held dear to. The writer of the epistle singles out:&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abel]], [[Enoch]] and [[Noah]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Joseph]] and [[Moses]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Joshua]] and [[Rahab]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gideon]], [[Barak]], [[Samson]] and [[Jephthah]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Samuel]] and the prophets&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of these demonstrated their faith by their works. All of these were still faithful at their deaths even though they died without ever receiving proof of their faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Incidentally, the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is mentioned more than twice in the OT. In fact, there are at least three different Hebrew words used to convey faith: '''אמנה''' '''אמוּנה''' '''אמוּנה''' - which would seem to be contradictory if it only gets two mentions! The Old Testament is the foundation of faith upon which the New Testament stands - if there is no &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; within the OT, then there can be none reflected in the NT, or what there is, is meaningless and superficial. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 05:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tautology! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology.  You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define &amp;quot;faith,&amp;quot; by saying, &amp;quot;well, not in the same way Christianity does,&amp;quot; and concluding &amp;quot;therefore faith is unique to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
FAITH is not unique to Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology.  1 = 1.  Congratulations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Main Page ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: &amp;quot;Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions.&amp;quot; [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Romans 10:17:&lt;br /&gt;
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;through the word of Christ.&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bad, bad, bad==&lt;br /&gt;
This article isn't just bad.  It's brilliantly bad.  Outstandingly bad.  It is a paradigmatic example of bad.  If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Alternate version==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of &amp;quot;fidelity,&amp;quot; which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater &amp;quot;leap of faith&amp;quot;, but not science.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science?  Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events.  And those are the sorts of things required for science.&lt;br /&gt;
:::But as you will see from the [[natural science]] article, differences between things that are &amp;quot;operational science&amp;quot; and others that are &amp;quot;origins science&amp;quot; mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth.  Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know).  The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Where has it been shown that the idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists? --[[User:Vincentvincent|Vincentvincent]] 07:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::: See [[Flat Earth]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is only one area of science in which &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is required.  That the universe and everything in it follow a set of naturalistic laws which can be predicted and understood, though there are some we are still working on.  However, this &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is backed up by the fact that the universe has always, so far as we currently know, followed a set of laws.  If you have no faith in this premise then a 5 minute old universe in which all our memories have been fabricated by god becomes a possibility and science goes out the window.  A 5 minute old universe, by the way, is logically just as likely as one less than 15 billion years old.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reject the theory of evolution requires more faith than to accept it because of all the evidence for the theory which must also be rejected.  Face it, based on genetics, it is statistically impossible for us to not share a common ancestor with all other mammals... Unless you think the earth is 5 minutes old and everything is a trick by god... now that requires a lot of faith... but no more than is required to believe in a 6000 year old earth or a virgin birth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith in Literature ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect.  Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Biblical Examples ==&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this &amp;quot;dry&amp;quot; page that we have here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Multiple definitions of faith ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All:  Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in.  I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; to the article.  Specifically:&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- &amp;quot;Believing without evidence,&amp;quot; and to show that ''this'' concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any objections?  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof.  It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Faith is a uniquely Christian concept&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kierkegaard ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His &amp;quot;leap to faith&amp;quot; discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. [[User:Probus1|Probus1]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith as loyalty based on past performance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&amp;diff=431099</id>
		<title>Talk:Faith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&amp;diff=431099"/>
		<updated>2008-04-15T02:44:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: /* Faith in Literature */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Reversion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything.  &amp;quot;Faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's moronic.  Very simply defined, the English word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof.  For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will.  I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.)  Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist.  If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone.  Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith.  Not even English can describe it well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&amp;amp;version=kjv&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
   1.  conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it&lt;br /&gt;
         1. relating to God&lt;br /&gt;
               1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ &lt;br /&gt;
         2. relating to Christ&lt;br /&gt;
               1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God &lt;br /&gt;
         3. the religious beliefs of Christians&lt;br /&gt;
         4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same &lt;br /&gt;
   2. fidelity, faithfulness&lt;br /&gt;
         1. the character of one who can be relied on &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept.  Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it.  For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not  have faith that it will send him to heaven.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Sources:''' &amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Heritage Dictionary==&lt;br /&gt;
says:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase &amp;quot;the Muslim faith,&amp;quot; it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that &amp;quot;The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called &amp;quot;New Age&amp;quot; religions, such as Wicca.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian.  The entry demonstrates that.  Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning.  Muslims &amp;quot;submit&amp;quot; to Allah rather than have faith in Allah.  The very reason for an entry here is to be precise.  Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic &amp;quot;better-ness?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If the page is to describe Faith as a &amp;quot;historically uniquely Christian&amp;quot; term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect.  Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise.  Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness.  An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary.  You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references.  If you think there is a Muslim &amp;quot;faith in Allah,&amp;quot; then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted.  By the way, the Koran does not support your view.  It calls for &amp;quot;submission to Allah.&amp;quot;  The term &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I take exception to the word &amp;quot;merely.&amp;quot; It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::AHD says that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; has five meanings. People who refer to &amp;quot;the Muslim faith&amp;quot; are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying &amp;quot;Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::To insist on &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails.  [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity?  That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic.   It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is Christian?  If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe.  If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact.  Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the &amp;quot;original&amp;quot; meaning of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is Christian, but current modern usage is different.  After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs.  True?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers.  Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning &amp;quot;to trust&amp;quot;, how can the original meaning be purely Christian?  Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot;.  Should we remove it?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Re: faith in other religions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam.  A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam.  Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah?  That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion.  Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable.  --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; and the Christian concept of &amp;quot;faith?&amp;quot; It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as &amp;quot;Defender of the Faithful,&amp;quot; and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as &amp;quot;Infidels&amp;quot; (i.e. &amp;quot;Unfaithful&amp;quot;), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
******Re: claim that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; in religious texts******&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&amp;amp;isindex=3982&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&amp;amp;searchmode=none&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry?  You keep falling back on the &amp;quot;Faith is Christian&amp;quot; concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise.  Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this &amp;quot;Conservapedia&amp;quot; just a &amp;quot;Schlaflyapedia&amp;quot; documenting your opinions rather than facts?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unlocking Faith==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is time we unlocked this entry.  It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless.  It is in desperate need of editing.  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith is NOT unique ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To say that the concept of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity.  To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian &amp;quot;Faith&amp;quot; by stating that they offer &amp;quot;no proof&amp;quot; that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept.  However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; IS unique to Christianity.  A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book.  That is hardly proof.  Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof.  In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, proof can be clearly offered.  To begin with, the author of the locked &amp;quot;article&amp;quot; on Faith suggests that &amp;quot;submission&amp;quot; to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith.  However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of &amp;quot;pietas,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;piety,&amp;quot; which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods.  A note of the importance of &amp;quot;pietas&amp;quot; in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to  Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues.  Among them, &amp;quot;pietas&amp;quot; was prominently figured.  (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg).  A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm).  The third book of Odes makes several mentions of &amp;quot;faithless foes&amp;quot; - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious.  Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance &amp;amp; role of the Gods in daily life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I insist not only that the article on be &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia.  You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts.  However, since often the facts include a &amp;quot;bias&amp;quot; against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts.  Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Right something trustworthy '''CANNOT''' be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard. {{unsigned|Cal05000}}&lt;br /&gt;
:: I disagree that trustworthy and biased are mutually exclusive.  However, I  agree that faith is not a uniquely Christian concept.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(reset)The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is generally considered to contain the greatest chapter regarding &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; in the New Testament. It points the early church, the fledgling Christians, towards the men and women of the Old Testament - Jews - and holds them up as true examples of real faith: after all, they didn't have any of the later &amp;quot;proofs&amp;quot; that Jesus demonstrated, they didn't have the &amp;quot;pouring out of the Holy Spirit&amp;quot;, they never saw any &amp;quot;substance&amp;quot; of what they believed in and held dear to. The writer of the epistle singles out:&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abel]], [[Enoch]] and [[Noah]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Joseph]] and [[Moses]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Joshua]] and [[Rahab]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gideon]], [[Barak]], [[Samson]] and [[Jephthah]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Samuel]] and the prophets&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of these demonstrated their faith by their works. All of these were still faithful at their deaths even though they died without ever receiving proof of their faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Incidentally, the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is mentioned more than twice in the OT. In fact, there are at least three different Hebrew words used to convey faith: '''אמנה''' '''אמוּנה''' '''אמוּנה''' - which would seem to be contradictory if it only gets two mentions! The Old Testament is the foundation of faith upon which the New Testament stands - if there is no &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; within the OT, then there can be none reflected in the NT, or what there is, is meaningless and superficial. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 05:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tautology! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology.  You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define &amp;quot;faith,&amp;quot; by saying, &amp;quot;well, not in the same way Christianity does,&amp;quot; and concluding &amp;quot;therefore faith is unique to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
FAITH is not unique to Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology.  1 = 1.  Congratulations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Main Page ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: &amp;quot;Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions.&amp;quot; [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Romans 10:17:&lt;br /&gt;
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;through the word of Christ.&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bad, bad, bad==&lt;br /&gt;
This article isn't just bad.  It's brilliantly bad.  Outstandingly bad.  It is a paradigmatic example of bad.  If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Alternate version==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of &amp;quot;fidelity,&amp;quot; which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater &amp;quot;leap of faith&amp;quot;, but not science.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science?  Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events.  And those are the sorts of things required for science.&lt;br /&gt;
:::But as you will see from the [[natural science]] article, differences between things that are &amp;quot;operational science&amp;quot; and others that are &amp;quot;origins science&amp;quot; mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth.  Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know).  The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Where has it been shown that the idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists? --[[User:Vincentvincent|Vincentvincent]] 07:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::: See [[Flat Earth]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith in Literature ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect.  Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Biblical Examples ==&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this &amp;quot;dry&amp;quot; page that we have here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Multiple definitions of faith ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All:  Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in.  I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; to the article.  Specifically:&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- &amp;quot;Believing without evidence,&amp;quot; and to show that ''this'' concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any objections?  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof.  It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Faith is a uniquely Christian concept&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kierkegaard ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His &amp;quot;leap to faith&amp;quot; discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. [[User:Probus1|Probus1]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith as loyalty based on past performance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&amp;diff=431097</id>
		<title>Talk:Faith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&amp;diff=431097"/>
		<updated>2008-04-15T02:43:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: /* Faith in Literature */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Reversion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything.  &amp;quot;Faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's moronic.  Very simply defined, the English word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof.  For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will.  I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.)  Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist.  If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone.  Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith.  Not even English can describe it well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&amp;amp;version=kjv&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
   1.  conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it&lt;br /&gt;
         1. relating to God&lt;br /&gt;
               1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ &lt;br /&gt;
         2. relating to Christ&lt;br /&gt;
               1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God &lt;br /&gt;
         3. the religious beliefs of Christians&lt;br /&gt;
         4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same &lt;br /&gt;
   2. fidelity, faithfulness&lt;br /&gt;
         1. the character of one who can be relied on &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept.  Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it.  For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not  have faith that it will send him to heaven.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Sources:''' &amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Heritage Dictionary==&lt;br /&gt;
says:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase &amp;quot;the Muslim faith,&amp;quot; it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that &amp;quot;The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called &amp;quot;New Age&amp;quot; religions, such as Wicca.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian.  The entry demonstrates that.  Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning.  Muslims &amp;quot;submit&amp;quot; to Allah rather than have faith in Allah.  The very reason for an entry here is to be precise.  Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic &amp;quot;better-ness?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If the page is to describe Faith as a &amp;quot;historically uniquely Christian&amp;quot; term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect.  Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise.  Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness.  An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary.  You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references.  If you think there is a Muslim &amp;quot;faith in Allah,&amp;quot; then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted.  By the way, the Koran does not support your view.  It calls for &amp;quot;submission to Allah.&amp;quot;  The term &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I take exception to the word &amp;quot;merely.&amp;quot; It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::AHD says that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; has five meanings. People who refer to &amp;quot;the Muslim faith&amp;quot; are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying &amp;quot;Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::To insist on &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails.  [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity?  That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic.   It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is Christian?  If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe.  If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact.  Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the &amp;quot;original&amp;quot; meaning of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is Christian, but current modern usage is different.  After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs.  True?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers.  Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning &amp;quot;to trust&amp;quot;, how can the original meaning be purely Christian?  Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot;.  Should we remove it?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Re: faith in other religions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam.  A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam.  Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah?  That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion.  Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable.  --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; and the Christian concept of &amp;quot;faith?&amp;quot; It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as &amp;quot;Defender of the Faithful,&amp;quot; and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as &amp;quot;Infidels&amp;quot; (i.e. &amp;quot;Unfaithful&amp;quot;), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
******Re: claim that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; in religious texts******&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.” &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&amp;amp;isindex=3982&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&amp;amp;searchmode=none&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry?  You keep falling back on the &amp;quot;Faith is Christian&amp;quot; concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise.  Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this &amp;quot;Conservapedia&amp;quot; just a &amp;quot;Schlaflyapedia&amp;quot; documenting your opinions rather than facts?  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unlocking Faith==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is time we unlocked this entry.  It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless.  It is in desperate need of editing.  --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith is NOT unique ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To say that the concept of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity.  To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian &amp;quot;Faith&amp;quot; by stating that they offer &amp;quot;no proof&amp;quot; that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept.  However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; IS unique to Christianity.  A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book.  That is hardly proof.  Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof.  In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, proof can be clearly offered.  To begin with, the author of the locked &amp;quot;article&amp;quot; on Faith suggests that &amp;quot;submission&amp;quot; to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith.  However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of &amp;quot;pietas,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;piety,&amp;quot; which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods.  A note of the importance of &amp;quot;pietas&amp;quot; in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to  Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues.  Among them, &amp;quot;pietas&amp;quot; was prominently figured.  (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg).  A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm).  The third book of Odes makes several mentions of &amp;quot;faithless foes&amp;quot; - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious.  Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance &amp;amp; role of the Gods in daily life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I insist not only that the article on be &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia.  You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts.  However, since often the facts include a &amp;quot;bias&amp;quot; against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts.  Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Right something trustworthy '''CANNOT''' be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard. {{unsigned|Cal05000}}&lt;br /&gt;
:: I disagree that trustworthy and biased are mutually exclusive.  However, I  agree that faith is not a uniquely Christian concept.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(reset)The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is generally considered to contain the greatest chapter regarding &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; in the New Testament. It points the early church, the fledgling Christians, towards the men and women of the Old Testament - Jews - and holds them up as true examples of real faith: after all, they didn't have any of the later &amp;quot;proofs&amp;quot; that Jesus demonstrated, they didn't have the &amp;quot;pouring out of the Holy Spirit&amp;quot;, they never saw any &amp;quot;substance&amp;quot; of what they believed in and held dear to. The writer of the epistle singles out:&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abel]], [[Enoch]] and [[Noah]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Joseph]] and [[Moses]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Joshua]] and [[Rahab]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gideon]], [[Barak]], [[Samson]] and [[Jephthah]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Samuel]] and the prophets&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of these demonstrated their faith by their works. All of these were still faithful at their deaths even though they died without ever receiving proof of their faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Incidentally, the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is mentioned more than twice in the OT. In fact, there are at least three different Hebrew words used to convey faith: '''אמנה''' '''אמוּנה''' '''אמוּנה''' - which would seem to be contradictory if it only gets two mentions! The Old Testament is the foundation of faith upon which the New Testament stands - if there is no &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; within the OT, then there can be none reflected in the NT, or what there is, is meaningless and superficial. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 05:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tautology! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology.  You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define &amp;quot;faith,&amp;quot; by saying, &amp;quot;well, not in the same way Christianity does,&amp;quot; and concluding &amp;quot;therefore faith is unique to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
FAITH is not unique to Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology.  1 = 1.  Congratulations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Main Page ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: &amp;quot;Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions.&amp;quot; [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Romans 10:17:&lt;br /&gt;
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;through the word of Christ.&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bad, bad, bad==&lt;br /&gt;
This article isn't just bad.  It's brilliantly bad.  Outstandingly bad.  It is a paradigmatic example of bad.  If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Alternate version==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of &amp;quot;fidelity,&amp;quot; which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater &amp;quot;leap of faith&amp;quot;, but not science.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science?  Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events.  And those are the sorts of things required for science.&lt;br /&gt;
:::But as you will see from the [[natural science]] article, differences between things that are &amp;quot;operational science&amp;quot; and others that are &amp;quot;origins science&amp;quot; mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth.  Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know).  The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Where has it been shown that the idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists? --[[User:Vincentvincent|Vincentvincent]] 07:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::: See [[Flat Earth]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith in Literature ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect.  Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is only one area of science in which &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is required.  That the universe and everything in it follow a set of naturalistic laws which can be predicted and understood, though there are some we are still working on.  However, this &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is backed up by the fact that the universe has always, so far as we currently know, followed a set of laws.  If you have no faith in this premise then a 5 minute old universe in which all our memories have been fabricated by god becomes a possibility and science goes out the window.  A 5 minute old universe, by the way, is logically just as likely as one less than 15 billion years old.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reject the theory of evolution requires more faith than to accept it because of all the evidence for the theory which must also be rejected.  Face it, based on genetics, it is statistically impossible for us to not share a common ancestor with all other mammals... Unless you think the earth is 5 minutes old and everything is a trick by god... now that requires a lot of faith... but no more than is required to believe in a 6000 year old earth or a virgin birth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Biblical Examples ==&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this &amp;quot;dry&amp;quot; page that we have here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Multiple definitions of faith ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All:  Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in.  I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; to the article.  Specifically:&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)&lt;br /&gt;
* Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- &amp;quot;Believing without evidence,&amp;quot; and to show that ''this'' concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any objections?  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof.  It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Faith is a uniquely Christian concept&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kierkegaard ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His &amp;quot;leap to faith&amp;quot; discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. [[User:Probus1|Probus1]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faith as loyalty based on past performance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&amp;diff=282185</id>
		<title>Radiometric dating</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&amp;diff=282185"/>
		<updated>2007-08-30T22:18:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: /* Calibration */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating&amp;amp;mdash;called [[Radiocarbon dating]]&amp;amp;mdash;can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material. It relies on the well-established function for exponential decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;=e&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-kt&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Principles ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No method exists for ''measuring'' time, except by measuring it as it is passing.   &lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, to work out how long a candle has been burning, the following steps would be needed:&lt;br /&gt;
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.&lt;br /&gt;
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.&lt;br /&gt;
# Measure how long the candle is now.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps.  For example, uranium will eventually decay into lead.  So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:&lt;br /&gt;
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).&lt;br /&gt;
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Key assumptions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.&lt;br /&gt;
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Initial quantities ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined.  With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with.  One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, but the same principle otherwise applies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rate of decay ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as is known, the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments.  See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   This is based upon knowledge of [[quantum mechanics]] and the structure of the atom.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Principles of Quantum Mechanics'' page 89&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- I cannot find any YEC articles that suggest otherwise with any supporting evidence beyond conjecture.  If any change is to be made, please refute with www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R2 -- Furthermore, remember there is more than C14 out there.--&amp;gt; Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. Non-charged particles such as neutrons can penetrate to the nucleus and disrupt it (this is how a nuclear bomb works) but such a process will either cause more neutrons to emerge at a rapidly escalating rate&amp;amp;mdash;which would be very obvious to say the least&amp;amp;mdash;or it will fizzle out in a tiny fraction of a second. It thus seems very unlikely that radioactive decay rates can be altered without this being obvious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Outside influences ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences.  One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for  EENS 211 at Tulane University&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays.  As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move.  Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]].  This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Calibration ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many methods of cross-verification exist.&lt;br /&gt;
Examples;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Eruption of Mt. TOBA dated to 70000 BC via radiometric dating matches ash layer in ice dated by the depth at which ash was found which also corelates to a genetic bottle neck found in human DNA which dates to around 70000BC via genetic drift.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Independent radiometric dating methods may be used to cross-check each other; K-Ar can be used to verify the result from U-Th to ensure Parent-Daughter assumptions were correct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carbon dating, with it's much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, while there are a few examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other, the vast majority of dating results are accurate within the margin of error for that method.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;addref&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; www.nature.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Young-Earth creationists therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley &amp;amp; Sons, 2005).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley &amp;amp; Sons, 2005).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Uranium-thorium]]&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_law&amp;diff=282140</id>
		<title>Scientific law</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_law&amp;diff=282140"/>
		<updated>2007-08-30T21:51:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: /* References */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A theory that has been tested by and is consistent with generations of data.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theory and Law&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A scientific Law is a '''description''' based on emperical observations.  A scientific law '''explains''' nothing.  A Theory unifies and explains emperical observations.  Thus a Law is not a refined theory and is not superior to a theory.  An '''explaination''' never becomes a '''description'''; A Scientifc Theory '''NEVER''' becomes a Law.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
Webster's Dictionary&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Law&amp;diff=281881</id>
		<title>Scientific Law</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Law&amp;diff=281881"/>
		<updated>2007-08-30T19:32:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: /* References */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A theory that has been confirmed by many years of experiments.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Law and Theory&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Scientific Law is a description of a observation as opposed to a Scientific Theory which is an explanation of those observations.  A good example of this is Gravity.  Where in you have the law of Gravitation which states: any particle in the universe attracts any other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of the masses of the two particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  Then you also have the Theory of Relativity which explains the law of Gravitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to popular belief, a law is not superior to a theory.  A theory will never be a law.  Just as a description can never explain anything.  If all we had were laws of science we would have a very well described universe but nothing would be explained.  &lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Webster's Dictionary&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Geology&amp;diff=49211</id>
		<title>Geology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Geology&amp;diff=49211"/>
		<updated>2007-03-19T22:15:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The study of the earth's history as revealed in the rocks that make up the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Geology (from Greek γη- (ge-, &amp;quot;the earth&amp;quot;) and λογος (logos, &amp;quot;word&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;reason&amp;quot;)) is the science and study of the solid matter of the Earth, its composition, structure, physical properties, history and the processes that shape it. It is one of the Earth sciences. Geologists have helped establish the age of the Earth at about 4.6 billion years, and have determined that the Earth's lithosphere, which includes the crust, is fragmented into tectonic plates that move over a rheic upper mantle (asthenosphere) via processes that are collectively referred to as plate tectonics. Geologists help locate and manage the Earth's natural resources, such as petroleum and coal, as well as metals such as iron, copper, and uranium. Additional economic interests include gemstones and many minerals such as asbestos, perlite, mica, phosphates, zeolites, clay, pumice, quartz, and silica, as well as elements such as sulfur, chlorine, and helium.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Planetary geology (sometimes known as Astrogeology) refers to the application of geologic principles to other bodies of the solar system. However, specialised terms such as selenology (studies of the Moon), areology (of Mars), etc., are also in use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The word &amp;quot;geology&amp;quot; was first used by Jean-André Deluc in the year 1778 and introduced as a fixed term by Horace-Bénédict de Saussure in the year 1779. The science was not included in Encyclopedia Britannica's third edition completed in 1797, but had a lengthy entry in the fourth edition completed by 1809.[1] An older meaning of the word was first used by Richard de Bury to distinguish between earthly and theological jurisprudence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Geology&amp;diff=49208</id>
		<title>Geology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Geology&amp;diff=49208"/>
		<updated>2007-03-19T22:14:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The study of the earth's history as revealed in the rocks that make up the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Geology (from Greek γη- (ge-, &amp;quot;the earth&amp;quot;) and λογος (logos, &amp;quot;word&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;reason&amp;quot;)) is the science and study of the solid matter of the Earth, its composition, structure, physical properties, history and the processes that shape it. It is one of the Earth sciences. Geologists have helped establish the age of the Earth at about 4.6 billion (4.6x109) years, and have determined that the Earth's lithosphere, which includes the crust, is fragmented into tectonic plates that move over a rheic upper mantle (asthenosphere) via processes that are collectively referred to as plate tectonics. Geologists help locate and manage the Earth's natural resources, such as petroleum and coal, as well as metals such as iron, copper, and uranium. Additional economic interests include gemstones and many minerals such as asbestos, perlite, mica, phosphates, zeolites, clay, pumice, quartz, and silica, as well as elements such as sulfur, chlorine, and helium.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Planetary geology (sometimes known as Astrogeology) refers to the application of geologic principles to other bodies of the solar system. However, specialised terms such as selenology (studies of the Moon), areology (of Mars), etc., are also in use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The word &amp;quot;geology&amp;quot; was first used by Jean-André Deluc in the year 1778 and introduced as a fixed term by Horace-Bénédict de Saussure in the year 1779. The science was not included in Encyclopedia Britannica's third edition completed in 1797, but had a lengthy entry in the fourth edition completed by 1809.[1] An older meaning of the word was first used by Richard de Bury to distinguish between earthly and theological jurisprudence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Geology&amp;diff=49202</id>
		<title>Geology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Geology&amp;diff=49202"/>
		<updated>2007-03-19T22:14:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The study of the earth's history as revealed in the rocks that make up the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Geology (from Greek γη- (ge-, &amp;quot;the earth&amp;quot;) and λογος (logos, &amp;quot;word&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;reason&amp;quot;)) is the science and study of the solid matter of the Earth, its composition, structure, physical properties, history and the processes that shape it. It is one of the Earth sciences. Geologists have helped establish the age of the Earth at about 4.6 billion (4.6x109) years, and have determined that the Earth's lithosphere, which includes the crust, is fragmented into tectonic plates that move over a rheic upper mantle (asthenosphere) via processes that are collectively referred to as plate tectonics. Geologists help locate and manage the Earth's natural resources, such as petroleum and coal, as well as metals such as iron, copper, and uranium. Additional economic interests include gemstones and many minerals such as asbestos, perlite, mica, phosphates, zeolites, clay, pumice, quartz, and silica, as well as elements such as sulfur, chlorine, and helium.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Planetary geology (sometimes known as Astrogeology) refers to the application of geologic principles to other bodies of the solar system. However, specialised terms such as selenology (studies of the Moon), areology (of Mars), etc., are also in use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The word &amp;quot;geology&amp;quot; was first used by Jean-André Deluc in the year 1778 and introduced as a fixed term by Horace-Bénédict de Saussure in the year 1779. The science was not included in Encyclopedia Britannica's third edition completed in 1797, but had a lengthy entry in the fourth edition completed by 1809.[1] An older meaning of the word was first used by Richard de Bury to distinguish between earthly and theological jurisprudence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biological_classification&amp;diff=49191</id>
		<title>Biological classification</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biological_classification&amp;diff=49191"/>
		<updated>2007-03-19T22:10:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Species ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification (see the diagram at the side - a genus contains one or more species, etc.) A usable definition of the word &amp;quot;species&amp;quot; and reliable methods of identifying particular species are essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity. A species consists of individual organisms which are very similar in appearance, anatomy, physiology and genetics due to having relatively recent common ancestors. Traditionally, multiple examples of a proposed species must be studied for unifying characters before it can be regarded as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commonly used names for types of animal in English and many other languages often do not correspond to species. For example: dogs are a sub-species of wolf; but the word &amp;quot;deer&amp;quot; refers to a family of 34 species, such as the Red Deer and Mule Deer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Binomial convention for naming species ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In scientific classification, a species is assigned a two-part name, treated as Latin. The genus is listed first (with its leading letter capitalized), followed by a second term. For example, gray wolves belong to the species Canis lupus, coyotes to Canis latrans, golden jackals to Canis aureus, etc.; and all of these belong to the genus Canis (which also contains many other species). The name of the species is the whole binomial, not just the second term (which may be called specific epithet for animals, or specific name for animals).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Books and articles sometimes intentionally do not identify species fully and use the abbreviation &amp;quot;sp.&amp;quot; in the singular or &amp;quot;spp.&amp;quot; in the plural in the place of the specific epithet, for example Canis sp. This commonly occurs in the following types of situation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The authors are confident that some individuals belong to a particular genus but are not sure to which exact species they belong. This particularly commom in paleontology. &lt;br /&gt;
The authors use the &amp;quot;spp.&amp;quot; as a short way of saying that something applies to many species within a genus, but do not wish say that it applies to all species within that genus. If scientists mean that something applies to all species wiith a genus, they use the genus name without the specific epithet. &lt;br /&gt;
In books and articles which use the Latin alphabet, genus and species names are usually printed in italics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The binomial naming convention, later formalized in the biological codes of nomenclature, was first used by Leonhart Fuchs and introduced as the standard by Carolus Linnaeus in the 1700s and as a result is sometimes called the &amp;quot;binomial nomenclature&amp;quot;. At this time, the chief biological theory was that species represented independent acts of creation by God, and were therefore considered objectively real and immutable.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&amp;diff=49047</id>
		<title>Plate tectonics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&amp;diff=49047"/>
		<updated>2007-03-19T20:58:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Plate tectonics is a theory of geology that has been developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions of the Earth's crust. The theory encompassed and superseded the older theory of continental drift from the first half of the 20th century and the concept of seafloor spreading developed during the 1960s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The outermost part of the Earth's interior is made up of two layers: above is the lithosphere, comprising the crust and the rigid uppermost part of the mantle. Below the lithosphere lies the asthenosphere. Although solid, the asthenosphere has relatively low viscosity and shear strength and can flow like a liquid on geological time scales. The deeper mantle below the asthenosphere is more rigid again. This is, however, due not to cooler temperatures but to high pressure.&lt;br /&gt;
The lithosphere is broken up into what are called tectonic plates—in the case of Earth, there are seven major and many minor plates (see list below). The lithospheric plates ride on the asthenosphere. These plates move in relation to one another at one of three types of plate boundaries: convergent, divergent, and transform. Earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trench formation occur along plate boundaries. The lateral movement of the plates is typically at speeds of 0.66 to 8.50 centimeters per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Developing the Theory ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Continental drift was hotly debated off and on for decades following Wegener's death before it was largely dismissed as being eccentric, preposterous, and improbable. However, beginning in the 1950s, a wealth of new evidence emerged to revive the debate about Wegener's provocative ideas and their implications. In particular, four major scientific developments spurred the formulation of the plate-tectonics theory: (1) demonstration of the ruggedness and youth of the ocean floor; (2) confirmation of repeated reversals of the Earth magnetic field in the geologic past; (3) emergence of the seafloor-spreading hypothesis and associated recycling of oceanic crust; and (4) precise documentation that the world's earthquake and volcanic activity is concentrated along oceanic trenches and submarine mountain ranges. &lt;br /&gt;
Ocean floor mapping &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About two thirds of the Earth's surface lies beneath the oceans. Before the 19th century, the depths of the open ocean were largely a matter of speculation, and most people thought that the ocean floor was relatively flat and featureless. However, as early as the 16th century, a few intrepid navigators, by taking soundings with hand lines, found that the open ocean can differ considerably in depth, showing that the ocean floor was not as flat as generally believed. Oceanic exploration during the next centuries dramatically improved our knowledge of the ocean floor. We now know that most of the geologic processes occurring on land are linked, directly or indirectly, to the dynamics of the ocean floor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Modern&amp;quot; measurements of ocean depths greatly increased in the 19th century, when deep-sea line soundings (bathymetric surveys) were routinely made in the Atlantic and Caribbean. In 1855, a bathymetric chart published by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Matthew Maury revealed the first evidence of underwater mountains in the central Atlantic (which he called &amp;quot;Middle Ground&amp;quot;). This was later confirmed by survey ships laying the trans-Atlantic telegraph cable. Our picture of the ocean floor greatly sharpened after World War I (1914-18), when echo-sounding devices -- primitive sonar systems -- began to measure ocean depth by recording the time it took for a sound signal (commonly an electrically generated &amp;quot;ping&amp;quot;) from the ship to bounce off the ocean floor and return. Time graphs of the returned signals revealed that the ocean floor was much more rugged than previously thought. Such echo-sounding measurements clearly demonstrated the continuity and roughness of the submarine mountain chain in the central Atlantic (later called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) suggested by the earlier bathymetric measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1947, seismologists on the U.S. research ship Atlantis found that the sediment layer on the floor of the Atlantic was much thinner than originally thought. Scientists had previously believed that the oceans have existed for at least 4 billion years, so therefore the sediment layer should have been very thick. Why then was there so little accumulation of sedimentary rock and debris on the ocean floor? The answer to this question, which came after further exploration, would prove to be vital to advancing the concept of plate tectonics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1950s, oceanic exploration greatly expanded. Data gathered by oceanographic surveys conducted by many nations led to the discovery that a great mountain range on the ocean floor virtually encircled the Earth. Called the global mid-ocean ridge, this immense submarine mountain chain -- more than 50,000 kilometers (km) long and, in places, more than 800 km across -- zig-zags between the continents, winding its way around the globe like the seam on a baseball. Rising an average of about 4,500 meters(m) above the sea floor, the mid-ocean ridge overshadows all the mountains in the United States except for Mount McKinley (Denali) in Alaska (6,194 m). Though hidden beneath the ocean surface, the global mid-ocean ridge system is the most prominent topographic feature on the surface of our planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Magnetic Striping and Reversals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning in the 1950s, scientists, using magnetic instruments (magnetometers) adapted from airborne devices developed during World War II to detect submarines, began recognizing odd magnetic variations across the ocean floor. This finding, though unexpected, was not entirely surprising because it was known that basalt -- the iron-rich, volcanic rock making up the ocean floor-- contains a strongly magnetic mineral (magnetite) and can locally distort compass readings. This distortion was recognized by Icelandic mariners as early as the late 18th century. More important, because the presence of magnetite gives the basalt measurable magnetic properties, these newly discovered magnetic variations provided another means to study the deep ocean floor.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&amp;diff=47322</id>
		<title>Plate tectonics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plate_tectonics&amp;diff=47322"/>
		<updated>2007-03-19T04:38:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cdizon: New page: Plate tectonics is a theory of geology that has been developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions of the Earth's crust. The theory encompassed and superseded the olde...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Plate tectonics is a theory of geology that has been developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions of the Earth's crust. The theory encompassed and superseded the older theory of continental drift from the first half of the 20th century and the concept of seafloor spreading developed during the 1960s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The outermost part of the Earth's interior is made up of two layers: above is the lithosphere, comprising the crust and the rigid uppermost part of the mantle. Below the lithosphere lies the asthenosphere. Although solid, the asthenosphere has relatively low viscosity and shear strength and can flow like a liquid on geological time scales. The deeper mantle below the asthenosphere is more rigid again. This is, however, due not to cooler temperatures but to high pressure.&lt;br /&gt;
The lithosphere is broken up into what are called tectonic plates—in the case of Earth, there are seven major and many minor plates (see list below). The lithospheric plates ride on the asthenosphere. These plates move in relation to one another at one of three types of plate boundaries: convergent, divergent, and transform. Earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trench formation occur along plate boundaries. The lateral movement of the plates is typically at speeds of 0.66 to 8.50 centimeters per year.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cdizon</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>