Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Shroud of Turin

2010-04-03T22:55:03Z

Composer: Addition of Luigi Garlaschelli's replica method and criticism.

[[image:Shroud of Turin face.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Negative image of the face of the Shroud; the photographic qualities of the Shroud were unknown until 1898.]]
The '''Shroud of Turin''' is a long cloth that contains the image of an apparently [[crucifixion|crucified]] man who had also been scourged and crowned with thorns.<ref>http://www.shroud.com/</ref> Many believe it was the burial cloth for [[Jesus]]. It has been the source of intense scientific controversy and there have many modern attempts to prove or disprove its authenticity. It was owned and maintained by families in [[Italy]] for centuries and given only in the late 20th century to the [[Roman Catholic Church]], which has never taken a position for or against its authenticity.

The Shroud has several unique characteristics. First, its image is brighter in as a [[photography|photographic]] negative, suggesting some extraordinary type of interplay of light in the burning of the image. Second, the nail wounds are through the man's wrists rather than his hands, despite the unanimous and inaccurate [[medieval]] depiction of the nail wounds for crucified victims as being through the hands. Modern analysis indicates that the hands are not strong enough to sustain the weight of man on the cross, while the wrists would be. Third, all the indicators of the unique scourging ''and'' crucifixion of the man are present on the Shroud, when it is unlikely anyone else would have been both scourged and crucified. Computer analysis suggests the image of coins on the Shroud that date from the time of [[Pontius Pilate]].

As reported by the [[BBC]], the leading secular [[British]] news source, "Mechthild Flury-Lemberg found that the fabric was woven in a three-to-one herringbone pattern, used for high quality cloths in the ancient world."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3624753.stm</ref>

Scientists have devoted years of work in analyzing the Shroud. Several of these scientists who have studied the Shroud converted to [[Christianity]] as a result.<ref>http://www.shroud.com/mrinobnf.pdf</ref>

==Early history==
====Bardesane of Edessa====
The earliest possible reference to the Shroud is found in a second century poem by Bardesane of Edessa. Called the "Hymn of the Pearl", it was embedded within the non-canonical ''Acts of Thomas'', and tells the story of a boy - apparently the figure in the poem - to retrieve a pearl from Egypt. He describes the "mirror of myself" embedded in his robe in some detail similar to the Shroud:
:''"And because I remembered not its fashion / for in my childhood I had left it in my father's house, / on a sudden, when I received it, / the garment seemed to me to become like a mirror of myself. / I saw it all in all, / and I to received all in it, / for we were two in distinction / and yet gain one in one likeness. / And the treasurers too, / who brought it to me, I saw in like manner / to be two (and yet) one likeness, for one sign of the king was written on them (both), / of the hands of him who restored to me through them / my trust and my wealth"'' [http://www.gnosis.org/library/hymnpearl.htm]

====Image of Edessa/Mandylion====
According to [[Eusebius]], King Abgar of Edessa was afflicted of an illness, and hearing of the miracles of Jesus as a healer he sent a letter to Him, asking if He would come to his aid. Jesus responded that He could not come, but would send his disciple Thaddeus, who comes and heals him [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xiii.html]; according to variants of this story King Abgar is left with the cloth image of Jesus, beginning with the ''Doctrine of Addai'' (ca. 400 A.D.) in which a court painter created an image of the Lord and "brought with him to Abgar the king, his master. And when Abgar the king saw the likeness, he received it with great joy, and placed it with great honor in one of his palatial houses." [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/addai_2_text.htm]. Artistic works of this relic - called either the "Image of Edessa" or the "[[mandylion]]" - generally have it portrayed as the face of Christ upon a towel or kerchief.

The mandylion would surface again around 525 when Edessa was flooded by the Daisan River. Workmen repairing one of the city's gates discovered a niche with the cloth inside; the mandylion was declared to be ''Acheiropoietos'' (Greek: Αχειροποίητος), "not made by hands", meaning that it was a miraculous image created supernaturally and not by man. The mandylion stayed in Edessa as a means of protection for the city from harm until forcibly taken to [[Constantinople]] in 944, where it was received with great fanfare by Emperor Romanus I. Placed within the church of Saint Mary of Blachernae, it stayed there as a Christian relic until disappearing in the sack of the city during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. One of the knights who participated in the sacking of Constantinople, Robert de Clari, left a detailed letter of what he observed at the time, and he referred to this relic as being more than a facial image:
:''"But among the rest, there was also another of the minsters, which was called the Church of my Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, within which was the shroud wherein Our Lord was wrapped. And on every Friday that shroud did raise itself upright, so that the form of Our Lord could clearly be seen. And none knows - neither Greek nor Frank - what became of that shroud when the city was taken."''[http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/clari4.htm]

== Dating the Shroud ==

Raymond N. Rogers, a retired [[chemist]] from the [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] in [[New Mexico]], studied the Shroud and declared, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported from his time," about A.D. 70. "It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named [[Jesus]]," Rogers said.<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref>

In 1988, [[carbon dating]] of a small snippet of the Shroud was performed, and the results suggested that the Shroud originated between A.D. 1238 and 1430. However, a peer-reviewed scientific paper later demonstrated the invalidity of those results, suggesting instead that the Shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.<ref>Rogers, Raymond N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin". Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425 Issue 1–2, pp. 189-194 (Jan. 20, 2005)[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4DTBVHC-1&_user=10&_handle=B-WA-A-W-WE-MsSAYWA-UUA-AAUYYDZUYC-AAUZVCZYYC-YZEWAVVVC-WE-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F20%2F2005&_rdoc=26&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235292%232005%23995749998%23553672!&_cdi=5292&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3d89246a5d4144616be7657f0d83b6cf]</ref> <ref>Mark Antonacci, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence" (2000)[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0871318903?tag=worldmyster07-20&creative=373489&camp=211189&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0871318903]</ref> The sample for the 1988 analysis had actually been taken from cloth woven into the Shroud during the [[Middle Ages]], thereby giving a false result.<ref>http://www.shroudcentersocal.com/</ref> Moreover, "the 12th Century Hungarian 'Pray Manuscript' come to depict Jesus being wrapped in the shroud - with authentic herringbone pattern and burn marks - 100 years before carbon-dating says the material originated."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3624753.stm</ref>

The defect in the carbon dating was that the samples were "uniquely coated with a yellow–brown [[plant]] gum containing dye lakes. [[Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry]] results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin." Instead, [e]stimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses."<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref>

== The Lamb ==
According to a paper by Dr. Petrus Soons scientific research of some of the photographs of the shroud show an oval object under the beard of the image. After much research three cursive letters were identified and translated from the Hebrew. The meaning of the translation was, "The Lamb," a name in which Jesus was refered to in the New Testament.<ref>Dr. Soons Paper http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache%3ACtDFWbA8AfIJ%3Awww.ohioshroudconference.com%2Fpapers%2Fp24.pdf+THE+SHROUD+OF+TURIN%2C+THE+HOLOGRAPHIC+EXPERIENCE+By+DR.+PETRUS+SOONS&hl=en&gl=us</ref> This finding now makes the person on the shroud exclusively identified with Christ.

== Replication ==

Luigi Garlaschelli, professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, announced that he had made a full size reproduction of the Shroud of Turin using only medieval technologies on October 5th, 2009. Garlaschelli placed a linen sheet over a volunteer and then rubbed it with an acidic pigment. The shroud was then aged in an oven before being washed to remove the pigment. The shroud was then aged in an oven before being washed to remove the pigment. He then added blood stains, scorches and water stains to replicate the original. The image on the reproduction would closely match that of the Turin Shroud with differences explained as the result of natural fading over the centuries. <ref>Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5943HL20091005</ref> But according to noted sindonologist Giulio Fanti, "the image in discussion does not match the main fundamental properties of the Shroud image, in particular at thread and fiber level but also at macroscopic level"<ref>http://www.acheiropoietos.info/abstracts/talks-image_formation.html</ref> Further criticism of Garlaschelli's replica has come from shroud scholars Peter Soons <ref>http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/why-the-italian-fake-does-not-reproduce-the-shroud-of-turin/</ref> and Thibault Heimburger <ref>http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==
*[http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf Sermon of Gregory Referendarius, Archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, August, 944]
*[http://www.shroudstory.com/shroud-of-turin-picture-01.htm Amazing Details about the Shroud]

[[Category:Christianity]]

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-03-01T00:45:37Z

Composer:

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above. Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations. There may have been another above who was in denial as well. Such denial is itself worthy of studying. Why the refusal? Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society. Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other. Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity. Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: You said that traditional marriage plainly affects productivity, could you please provide any sources if any significant studies have been made? I'm interested in sociology among other things and I'd like to browse them.
::::::::::As regards the correlation between heterosexuality and athletic achievement, wondering "how many homosexual exceptional athletes are there?" and expecting a 50/50 distribution would be instinctive, but I believe it would also be flawed logic. The comparison to make is between the percentage of homosexual athletes and the percentage of homosexual population. Said more clearly... if 5% of the population is homosexual, there should be 5% of exceptional athletes who are homosexual. Lower than that, and you could claim that homosexuality is harmful to athletic achievement; higher than that, and you could claim that homosexuality advantages athletic achievement, though things are never this simple and many other factors matter.

:::::::::: Also keep in mind that the number of homosexual athletes may be underestimated, as not everyone would be comfortable with revealing it to the public. This would be particularly true in team sports: imagine a football player revealing to his team that he is homosexual, it would probably make many squad members - with whom he shares changing rooms and showers - uncomfortable, so he is more likely to keep it private instead of making it public.
::::::::::On the other hand, statistic surveys on the percentage of homosexual population should not suffer from the same problem, as they are usually done anonymously, and homosexual people would probably be more willing to answer truthfully.

:::::::::: So, keeping in mind these issues, the question is - is there a percentage of homosexual exceptional athletes which is comparable to the average percentage of homosexual people in the world? Personally, the only high-level openly homosexual athlete I can think of is Martina Navratilova, but I don't know much about sports. Any others? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:06, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::::: The percentage of homosexual athletes in professional football, baseball and basketball is virtually zero (0). And, no, that cannot be explained by alleged "underestimating".

::::::::::: I addressed your point, now how about addressing mine: it's absurd to expect that the two variables, Olympic achievement and economic policy, are completely independent of each other. Prosperity and the luxury of athletic training are plainly related.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I'll start writing a bit more on the left of, if we go on indenting, we will soon only write three or four characters per line :P

My reply to you is, yes, it '''is''' absurd to expect that the two variables are completely independent. Economic prosperity, social and moral values... everything has an effect on something else. But the point is, the factors in play are just so many that some are bound to be almost ininfluential. To speak more clearly: about the poor performance of Spain at the Winter Olympics, the sociopolitical and moral values of spain have probably influenced the results 0,5%, and other factors (the fact that Spain does not have a significant tradition in winter sports, and the geography of Spain, chiefly) have contributed the remaining 99,5%. So Spain is not doing poorly because it is socialistic, or because it approves of homosexual marriage: Spain is doing poorly because it has always done poorly at Winter Sports.

On the other hand, Germany and Norway, respectively first and third in these Olympic games so far, are blessed by both geography and tradition; that's why they are doing well, in spite of the fact that Germany accepts "civil unions", and socialist Norway accepts homosexual marriage.

To sum it up, my personal point of view is that, while it is absurd to believe that social and economic policies have no effect whatsoever on the agonistic performance of countries at Olympic Games, their effect is subordinated to others; and as for the moral and religious values, I believe their effect on the athletic performance of a country to be marginal. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:04, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, are you Italian? 0,5% is hard to perceive in the US, where we use a decimal point instead, like so: 0.5%

:Of course prosperity and altheticism are related, but so are many other factors. To say that something is statistically significant does not always reveal a clear causal pattern (e.g. it has been shown, for example, that the historical length of womens' skirts and the performance of the stock market is statistically correlated, but this does not mean that every woman wearing a skirt of a given length will guarantee a certain stock market performance). We need better weighting criteria, as it were. For example, the Spaniards may not do so well at the Winter Olympics simply due to their Mediterranean climate.

:How has Spain done historically at the Summer Olympics? Has it gotten worse since 2000 (Zapatero's rise to power began around then)? There are two data points to compare with previous performance.

:I have one slight qualm with this analysis, however. The popularity of a sport within a given country is very dynamic. It is reasonable to assume that popularity spreads more than it dies off, so around the world we should see a general increase in performance (to human limits) in a given sport as time goes on (barring lulls in performance, which certainly do occur). Thus, if we note that a particular country like Spain has fared worse under Socialist politics, it is possible that this is due to the increased competition in the sport as popularity increases and more countries train better teams as the years go by, rather than to Socialist politics. In order to really show the effect of political tendencies on athleticism, such a characteristic must hold very broadly, which has yet to be demonstrated here. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:20, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::I welcome more analysis. At least we have successfully moved past the [[liberal denial]] that there is no causal effect. There likely is some causal effect, as Maquissar apparently admits above. The issue now is merely how great the causal effect is, and let's continue to review the evidence. For Canada, the clearest data point, the causal effect seems strong indeed.

::The liberal denial remains of interest to me. Why are liberals so quick, and so irrational, in denying a causal effect? It's ingrained in the ideology. Liberals push socialism, abortion, homosexual behavior, limits on energy production, etc., etc., and they are so trained to deny that their ideology has harmful effects that they will jump into denial mode like Pavlov's dog.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 25 February 2010 (EST)

More research: I looked at how Scandinavian ("Northern Europe") has fared with its medal take under its increased socialism, and the answer is as expected: it has lost medal share.[http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/2/17/1314224/where-in-the-world-are-the-olympic]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:This whole debate is a classic case of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Your own graph shows an increase in medals to the US in the last 50 years despite the US's increasing socialistic policies. In addition, these percentages fail to consider that there is an increase in the number of countries taking part in Olympic games, thus taking a percentage of the medals won. [[User:AndrewJay|AndrewJay]] 19:37, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::''(Please note that I disagree about any prevalence of irrationality, bias, denial and so on in liberals. I point this out merely as a note, lest by partecipating in this discussion I may seem to endorse it. In fact I personally reject it, but as it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss it I will not comment on it and I will stick to the "factors influencing athletic performance" debate.)''

::: About Canada - is it really performing THAT badly at the Olympics? I am not really following them, but it is in the third place, which seems to be consistent with past results. Actually, it is significantly HIGHER than past rankings, but that does not really matter, as the Olympic Games are held in Canada this year and host countries are always a little advantaged.
::: Anyway, let's, for the sake of argument, accept as true that Canada is performing very poorly. As I said before, tradition and geography plays the largest role in my opinion, but there are other factors influencing the performance of Olympic teams, from negligible to significant ones.
::: Here, in my opinion, are some of those factors.

::: * Random fluctuations in the number and quality of naturally gifted individuals - an item which is more relevant for countries with less population (A country with 1 million people will have a harder time picking 22 talented athletes for a soccer team than a country with 90 million people.)
::: * Availability of economic resources for developing the talent of said gifted individuals.
::: * Political initiative to promote sports and healthy lifestyles in young people.
::: * A mentality which promotes competition, mostly for individual sports but also for team-based sports.
::: * A mentality which promotes cooperation, for team-based sports.
::: * Enthusiasm and willingness to win - which may decline if players are already very successful and overpayed.
::: * Luck. It doesn't exist in statistics, but it exists in real life, and provides an edge which may change an average performance to a brilliant one - or which may completely ruin a performance of an otherwise talented athlete.
::: * Morale. This may depend on a billion different factors, which may be random and external. Just to give an example, an athlete whose wife died two week before of the Olympic Games will not play at his 100%, if he plays at all.
::: * Physical condition of players. A team with its key athletes injured, or recovering from injuries, will be disadvantaged.
::: * Level of competition. Many exceptionally talented athletes or teams would, under normal conditions, deserve to win, but unfortunately for them they meet someone who is even MORE exceptionally talented.
::: * Venue of competition. Bolivia plays very well at home, because of the high altitudes and the lower percentage of oxygen to which others may be not accustomed. Likewise, nations with a cold climate will fare a bit worse with very high temperatures, and vice versa.

::: This is just a partial list. As you can see, the variables are so many that it's very hard to claim that something is the "decisive factor". Personally, I believe that economics play a moderate to significant role in the athletic performances of a nation; that social and political issues play a minor role; and that religious or moral issues play a negligible role. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:48, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Maquissar, there's no logic to your argument. Listing many potential factors says nothing about the significance of the factors. The existence of "many" variables does not negate the ability to identify a cause-and-effect. There are "many" variables connected with lung cancer too. And one of those variables is clearly the major cause of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::: So, let me get this clear, without any room for doubt. Are you saying that cigarette smoking is to lung cancer what socialism and endorsement of homosexual marriage are to decline of athletic performance of nations? If so, we will just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 20:13, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: Please don't forget to mention the recent Men's Olympic Hockey and Female's Olympic Hockey win on the main page as the American game win against the Canadians got a mention right before this silly cheap shot was posted. Then after you post that, be sure to post how a country that elected a Marxist-identifying, socialist focused president has embarrassed itself when going up against one of the most entrepreneurial nations on Earth. And American conservatives wonder WHY they get put down in the media as they attack their biggest trading partner and war ally which has a much more conservative party in charge then their own country has been able to get in the past twenty years. --[[User:Composer|Composer]] 18:13, 28 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Well, Canada DID defeat the US in the hockey final, and it did well at the Olympics after all. I don't think it's fair to say that Canada "embarassed itself" at the Olympics. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:18, 28 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::: I have an open mind about this, and I'm very happy for the Canadians. I know why the liberal media put down American conservatives, and I don't think Composer describes it accurately. But, hey, it's time for Canada to celebrate and I'm fine with taking some criticism as part of that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 28 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::The whole issue isn't a political issue, it's a sports issue. The current government's ideology is a factor but it is minor compared to other factors such as how much money is being put into the athletes and also what kinds of sports are popular in the culture they hail from. If anyone should be getting praise first it should be the athletes THEN the country in that order. I don't know why Canada gets shoe horned into the description of being 'socialist' alongside some very distasteful regimes. Canadians don't hate America as well. We're different and we don't always see eye to eye but we have helped each other in the past and will continue to do so.--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 19:45, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-28T23:13:38Z

Composer: Reply to the anti-Canada shots on the main page.

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2010-02-17T03:28:58Z

Composer:

== Taking AP Biology ==
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but... I am a student in public high school, and am taking AP Biology. I have just learned that Evolution is an entire '''chapter''' in the course. Would it be moral for me to learn evolution without believeing it just to pass the test? Or should I drop the course? (This would be very time consuming and difficult)- David {{unsigned|DavidKondner}}
::Nothing immoral about learning about evolution at all. Go for it and you will be pleasantly surprised to learn what evolution is actually like. After all, the majority of people have major misconceptions on what it is which leads to their denial of it. Learning about something from those who support it is always best for learning the truth about the subject, don't limit your understanding of things to just those against it. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I think Riddle is a very smart man and you should listen to what he has to say. No, you don't need to believe in evolutionism, but how are we suppose to become one peaceful humanity without learning about one another. [[user:horenvalle]] 14:01, October 16 2009 (EDT)

:::Learn a falsehood and pretend it's true, and more falsehoods, confusion, depression and errors will follow. Realize that atheists must believe in evolution despite its falsehood and you'll immediately see why they push, and push, and push it in public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

::::"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never peril. [[Sun Tzu]]"
::::If there's ''only'' a chapter on evolution in your course, I'd be amazed. Any non-creationist course on [[biology]] is likely to be [[evolution]]-centric. After all, if one won't accept special [[creation]], it's the only game in town! Just keep in mind the difference between science (testable, repeatable) and just-so stories ("This feature arose because ..."). Here are a couple of links you might find useful and encouraging:
::::*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0920classroom.asp ‘Creation evangelism’ in the public school classroom]
::::*[http://creation.com/how-do-i-do-my-assignment-about-evolution How do I do my assignment about evolution?]
::::You also might want to invest in a copy of Evolution Exposed, a book that breaks down the evolutionary assumptions and explanations, explicit and implicit, and provides both brief answers and directions to finding more information on line.
::::In short, you need to know what the evolutionists teach, even if you know it's wrong. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

::better learn the material. College consists of a lot of required courses you have to take but don't have to believe. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:05, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

:::All the examples of such requirements consist of learning and reciting anti-Christian beliefs. I'm not aware of any colleges or AP tests that require learning a Christian belief to obtain basic credits.

:::Try homeschooling David, or try a college that does not require recitation of evolutionary beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you all for your wonderful suggestions! In the end I decided to take the course and found out it wasn’t nearly as bad as a thought it would be. I expressed my concerns to my teacher beforehand and he was very understanding. Before we started the unit he was very clear to the class that evolution was a theory and we were under no obligation whatsoever to believe evolution, however he still expects us to know the material for the AP exam. It’s amazing how similar some of God’s creatures can be and I can almost see how a Godless Atheist might believe they once shared a common ancestor. All in all, the course has been an enlightening experience and, for the most part, has given me greater respect and appreciation for God’s creatures and life in general. --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:59, 3 February 2010 (EST)

:Davidkon, we have no way to confirm your experience, but even if true it is not typically for public school science teachers, most of whom can be very liberal and very dogmatic about the theory of evolution. Also, I find it odd that "he still expects us to know the material for the AP exam." AP exams are like extra credit, for an extra charge, and are rarely a requirement of any public school class.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 3 February 2010 (EST)

== Unable to edit? ==

I would like to post the following to the Jesse Helms article after "Foreign Policy" but am locked out. I don't know why. {{unsigned|BertSchlossberg}}
: Editing is often turned off overnight (U.S. time), which may have been your problem, although that means that you shouldn't have been able to post here, so unless it was turned back on in the meantime, I can't explain it. Would you like to try it again? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:: Right. The [[Jesse Helms]] entry is not locked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When only part of an article is accepted==
I recently posted an entry, [[F-105 Thunderchief]], and included a references section and a category, but in the final article, neither section shows up, although they are clearly present when the "Edit" button is clicked. Just now, this happened again with another entry I tried to make. What gives? Does the site only accept so much information in a new entry? --[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:You had a bad <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag which I have fixed. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::I did? Oopsie. And thanks.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==KAL 007 article on Main page==
I would like to propose having the article [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] as a featured article on the Main page. Thanks.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 15:32, 1 March 2008 (EST)
(finally got it right!)

: I'd like to review it in detail and hear what others think about it. On its surface, without yet studying it, it appears to be a major work. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:: There's a [[Conservapedia:Featured articles|page]] for listing proposed featured articles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:52, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut==

I just wrote an exteremly long and extensive artical about these two songs. Then, when I went to save the page, it said that it did not save it because there was a quote in their to explain about the song that contained a profanity. What gives? I thought that this website was supposed to educate people, yet people cannot be educated if they cannot know what the artical is talking about and what the proof is. {{unsigned|Std}}
: We have a profanity filter for good reason, but sometimes exceptions need to be made. You haven't supplied enough information for us to judge if this warrants an exception. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

What exactly are the exeptions that would get me the warrent?

How do you upload an image?

{{unsigned|Std}}
:You have to ask an administrator. There was a problem with people uploading obscene materials. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
: An exception would be warranted if, for example, the word caught by the filter was not objectionable in the context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Can anyone do an article on Cong. Larry McDonald, a passenger aboard KAL 007?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 07:01, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

==Proposal==
I wrote some time ago about making plans to build Conservapedia into a force to be reckoned with. This site has the potential to become a powerful tool, but still has a ways to go, I think. As an example, I just did a search on [http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= ACORN], a group funded by leftist billionaire [[George Soros]] that is becoming a very serious threat to the integrity of local elections. All I found was a one-line page about the oak tree. Of course the solution to this is to simply create the page myself. But I don't think this solves the larger issue; to my knowledge, there isn't a program of incentives inviting conservatives to contribute high-quality information and research articles on our opposition. How do we do this?

For one, I take it that Conservapedia gets some heavy traffic. Heavy traffic = $$$ in potential advertising revenue. Use that money to attract the right people to help build Conservapedia into a powerhouse of information. This could include rewards for college students, or hired admins (background checked with references and resume, of course). Perhaps contact county or state Republican/conservative groups, show what you've done, and propose a team effort to get more people to contribute articles to the web site.

In short, there's a million ways that this project can grow, and it is more important to me that the conservative cause succeeds than to keep these ideas to myself. My hope is that someone reading this will take hold of them... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

My IP address at home appears to have been blocked. Could someone please unblock me? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 15:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Bobby R. Himes==
I have a photo for the new article [[Bobby R. Himes]]. Can I get permission to upload it?[[User: Bhathorn|Bhathorn]] 18:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: If the picture is on-line (and available for Conservapedia to use, of course), post the address here or click [[Special:Emailuser/Philip_J._Rayment|here]] to e-mail me the link and I can upload it to Conservapedia for you. If it's on your computer, e-mail me via that link anyway and I will reply with my e-mail address for you to e-mail me the picture, so I can then upload it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Banning policy?==
Hello, I represent a website interested in your work. However recently a member of ours, JMcClane used your website and edited a page on Obama because it stated he was a Muslim, which it has been proven he isn't, he has been banned for 5 years, care to comment? It was a JPatt who did the banning, would he like to comment too?
:JMcClane removed a large amount of material in that article and replaced it with this:
::''"Obama is regularly mistaken as Islamic due to his second name, in fact he is not Muslim though stands for equality between religions. He is in fact Christian, though rumours were spread by Conservative spin Doctors hoping to turn the public against him."''
:And who is JMcClane to you? Care to comment on that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:16, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:Beyond the fact that you didn't answer my question mate, we're part of the same website who are interested in the current election in America, you might have heard of it. He became involved in this site and this happened, so I reiterate, gonna answer the question properly?
::I did answer your question, "mate", and you're not going to act like you run ''this place''; you will answer mine now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, we're part of the same website. I'm sorry about the mate comments, I'm just friendly like that. You've said you banned him cause of the edit, but isn't it kind of harsh as it is proven he's not Muslim so the entire article was pointless. That's all I'd like to know. And 5 years does seem steep.

Which website do you represent? Why are you interested in Conservapedia? Our banning policy is carefully calibrated and appropriate to the demands of the various situations. And sign your posts with four tildes, please; we are not interested in anonymous 'contributions'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Google misdirection==
In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 13:19, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*Thanks for noticing and reporting this, FOIA, but nothing needs to be done. When we had the hard drive failure, and temporarily re-directed, the search engine bots picked that up. Now that things are restored, the bots will report back to all the search engines, and in due time will be directing properly. The Google (and all other engines) are smart enough to compare and repair. Or so they say. Administrator Conservative might have more insight into this, and I have linked him to this page. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
** For what its worth, Google is pretty much 100% automated. They almost never manually intervene in their search results, and that's generally due to a court or otherwise governmental order. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
*** You mean that they generally ''only'' intervene due to court or governmental orders, correct? [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== Copyright? ==
I'd like to comment that [[:File:Kathleen Sebelius.jpg]] should probably be tagged as “fair use” rather than as “public domain.” Also, I think the description of the {{tl|commons}} template, both in [[Help:List of Templates]] and in the template body itself, is slightly misleading: items in Wikimedia Commons are not necessarily in the public domain. Thank you. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== In the News ==
I'm not sure how to submit suggestions, so I'll post this here: Timothy Larsen, "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html Look Who's a Believer Now]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', May 29, 2009, p. W13. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 10:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

== Google Gadget? ==
I understand that [[google]] has problems, but has there ever been thought to developing a "Google Gadget" with a conservapedia news feed?[[User:Mrguido45|Mrguido45]] 20:59, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Evolution Feature on the Main Page ==
The section of the main page devoted to the Evolution article states that, "In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." The study was conducted with 2000 Americans (approximately), selected by pseudo-random digit dialing over the telephone. the study found that the portion of people unsure about evolution has increased in a statistically significant manner. The second finding of the study was that the proportion of people who believe in evolution and creationism have not changed in any statistically significant way (i.e.: That the p-value of the 1985 and 2005 data sets is greater than 0.05 - simply put, that there is not enough detectable difference between the respondents in 1985 and 2005 to make any kind of statement about it). Essentially, the study cited on the main page didn't actually prove that the public belief in evolution is declining. I would request a change to that article to remove the irrelevant citation about a decrease in evolutionary thinking among Americans. [[User: Praboud|Praboud]] 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Referred to as a Methodist ==

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right location to ask this, but at the bottom of my user page there is a category section that says "Category: Methodist Conservapedians". I didn't place that there and it isn't available for editing out when I look at the editable content for my user page. I only bring this up because I am not a Methodist and I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I am. I do not know who added me to this category or why, or somehow if I accidentally did this myself. If possible, may I be added to the "Agnostic conservapedians" category instead? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 8:42, 20 June 2009 [EDT]

:It appears to be because of your userbox "This user believes in the United States Constitution." When I tried putting it on my user page, the Methodist category automatically appeared there as well. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 09:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::Fixed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:20, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

== I might be wrong... ==

But I do see quite a bit of bias on Conservapedia. If this is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" then shouldn't bias be removed? I think that some of the articles are great and others are blatantly biased based upon the authors moral views. I know that some of the topics go against the beliefs of the people who run this site but it isn't a great way to run things. Tolerance of others and their beliefs, no matter what we think of them, is what Conservapedia should be about. Just my opinion and nothing more.

:Just your '''unsupported''' opinion and nothing more, you might have said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:35, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::I could have, but I figured that people would pick that up from "'''I might be wrong...'''". I never had any beliefs that my opinions were supported here, as I had to make an effort to "vocalize" them. Generally people on and off of the internet don't support my opinions.

:::What I meant was that you made a claim of bias without providing any examples to support your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Ah. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Che_Guevara]] "Ernesto "Che" Guevara" "became a cultural icon for" "'''dumb white teenagers'''." [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Communism]] "Communism is an atheistic political system" Although extremely hilarious, I think that those articles are somewhat biased and detract from Conservapedia's accountability. I have not seen Wikipedia style hijackings yet though.

==Tau ceti to Tau Ceti==

I created an article called [[Tau ceti]], but it should be Tau Ceti, is there anyway the name can be reset as the latter? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:00, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

:Yes, there [[Tau Ceti|'''is''']]. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks! -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:22, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

==Alger Hiss==
I just tried to link to The Encyclopedia of Ukraine at and got this message:

::Spam protection filter

::The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

The spam filter apparently mistook part of the URL for an obscenity.

Is there any way to fix this? Thanks![[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 21:40, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

*You can give the URL without making it a link, so that people can copy and paste the link into their own browser, but I am not inclined to unblock any part of that corner of the world, for pretty obvious reasons. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

==Kapteyn's star to Kapteyn's Star==

The article I created called [[Kapteyn's star]] was created with a lower case s for star, it should be upper case, could someone with the rights change the title to Kapteyn's Star? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:00, 8 July 2009 [EDT]

== Double Redirects ==
All three of the current [[Special:doubleredirects|double redirects]] are protected. Could a Sysop fix them, please? Thanks. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

==I'm having a bit of trouble with some linking==

I'm trying to get the "Weather Report" and "Return to Forever" articles to link to jazz fusion. Instead, it's linking me to another jazz fusion article that I accidentally created and was recently deleted. Any help is much appreciated. [[User:Jdelong11|Jdelong11]]

: Did my change fix this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:55, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Username change==
Is it possible to change one's username? I haven't decided what I want the new one to be but will let you know when I have.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:30, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

If this is possible, I would also be interested in doing so, since I have been recently denuked, and it would be disingenuous to continue with this username. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]]

:Sure, just provide your requested new name here and I'll change it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)

==User Additions to this site==
Hi, I'm new here and I'm interested in adding some content to Conservapedia, namely in respect to firearm laws. Just a cursory glace makes me think that users can only edit existing topics? Am I wrong?
--[[User:LibGunslinger|LibGunslinger]] 11:28, Dec 10 2009
:You can add new pages if you so desire.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==Nova==

I believe this is right place to ask this, so here I am. I want to write an article on the astronomical phenomenon known as a "Nova", however all search on this site for that word is already directed towards "NOVA", a stub on the PBS series of that name. Should I rebuild that article to focus on the astronomical phenomena as that is what the base definition of a nova means? Or start a whole new article, such as "nova_(star)"? Thanks. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:18, 28 December 2009 (EST)

: I'll move "NOVA" to "NOVA (PBS)", and you can then have "Nova". Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:56, 28 December 2009 (EST)

::I turned the NOVA page into a disambiguation page that now points to both [[NOVA_(PBS)]] and [[Nova_(star)]], is this good? May want to make it Nova instead of NOVA though. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:29, 28 December 2009 (EST)

:::It's fine as you did it. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Deleting Account==
I'm not sure how it's done but I can't seem to find an option to shutdown/cancel my account. Please, shutdown/cancel my account. I've simply decided to not work on this project anymore. I didn't do many edits but if they all have to go, that's fine.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 22:14, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:The easiest way is the most direct way, "Composer"...simply stop logging in. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:24, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::Is that an auto-account deletion function? How many days does it take? I don't want this account sitting on this IP address.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 22:28, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2010-02-17T03:14:25Z

Composer:

Talk:Public school culture

2010-02-16T12:30:33Z

Composer:

Where are you getting this information from? I am in public school and do not fit into ANY of those categories... AndrasK: 22:26 April 27 (EDT)
:Same here. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 22:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I can usually recognize someone as being from public school by (i) his or her fashion, (ii) his or her demeanor, and (iii) his or her outlook as conveyed by body language. Sometimes I need them to say something, and that reveals the remainder. I'm not kidding. The culture is pronounced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Your experiences justify making enormous generalizations? AndrasK: 22:37 April 27 (EDT)

: It's a culture. Objective observations can be made about cultures. Are you trying to censor that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok first of all, stop accusing me of trying to censor anything just because I am pointing out flaws in your Modus Operandi. And that is one example of high school culture. There are other aspects of high school culture, and I will add them to the article. AndrasK: 22:41 April 27 (EDT)

I dont think what you describe is 'Public school culture' andy. It is just modern fashion, popular music taste expressed through fashion etc. jeez, 40 years ago you could say so called 'public school culture' was long hair and bell bottoms. What you describe is modern culture. It is apart from schooling. Unless you're homeschooled and dont associate with modern culture.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:11, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Eye contact==
My excuse for not looking someone in the eye is the same as Japanese culture: a sign of respect.

The other reason might be because they are afraid of their true selves and being "figured out" by others. [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 18:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Non-Cultural?==
How are those points you removed uncultural, ASchlafly? It just looks like you removed all of the positive ones. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 10:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Hmm, good point. How is joining clubs/sports along with being pro-homosexual not part of public school culture? Aren't a lot of home schoolers barred from joining clubs even though they are "enrolled" in the school? -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 10:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The list is not about what people can join, but what their "culture" is (such as style, views, etc.).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:::OK, I re-added some and reworded so it reflects "culture" '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 18:46, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Another laughable page==

Please can you tell me something? This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, isnt it? The function of an encyclopedia is, as I understand it, to act as a reference for facts. This is just another list of things that someone doesn't like and likes to imagine describes another group.

As I understand it, part of the function of this website is to act as a learning resource and as something young people can use to research projects or homework from school. Given that pages like this keep appearing, do we honestly believe that any teacher who follows a reference to conservapedia will think that this is a site that is worth referencing in a piece of work? I can tell you, if someone I teach gave me a quote or a reference from an "encyclopedia" that contained this sort of thing, I would mark them down quite heavily. More so even than I would if they used Wikipedia, and my classes know that wikipedia is NOT a good source for referencing, but at least they TRY to have some sort of support for the claims they make on the pages.

Please, please please can we pull ourselves together and realise that lists like this are NOT encyclopedic in nature and should, at the very least, be labelled as some sort of talk or debate page. Otherwise we will drive away people looking for serious information.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 13:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::KimSell - you obviously know that access to opinion is often stifled in educational environments. I'm glad to see you have advised your students about referencing Wikipedia, but opinions on the actual schools they are attending - and the quality thereof - would be hard for them to find. It's important that your students understand the poor environment they are in, and so this is, indeed, an encyclopediac entry, and it should stay as is. There's enough liberal opinion out there, let's at least have some balance against it. [[User:NormanTebbitt|NormanTebbitt]] 14:31, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Well put, Norman. Kim, give me a lineup of students, and I can pick out the [[public school]] ones based on their appearance and, if necessary, some general conversation. That's objectively observable. It's not opinion. Let's not censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Sorry Andy, but a completely unsubstantiated claim about what you can do is NOT evidence of anything. Icould say that I can tell a Frenchman by the way his toes are, but we dont have an article called [[French Toes]] do we? No. Because it is not encyclopedic in nature.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: It is not a matter of denying them access to opinions. Opinions are fine. They have their place. But NOT in something that claims to be an encyclopedia. And sorry, but "soome guy on the internet says he can tell a public school student" does NOT make an article encyclopedic in nature. Open any real world encyclopedia and find me an article even slightly similar to this "article". You won't be able to do it, because real encyclopedias require something more than the opinion of some guy on the web. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 16:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions by ASchlafly==
Could you please explain why "An emphasis on social development" should not be in the article? You have reverted it twice, and as far as I can tell you have not given any explanation. Thank you. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 21:02, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

: There is nothing about the "public school culture" that embodies "an emphasis on social development." What does that phrase have in mind? Gang initiation? Drug use? It's absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Uhh actually high school is heavily involved with social development. In highschool one learns to communicate and interact efficiently and effectively with one's peers. One learns social rules regarding limits with different types of individuals (how to interact with students vs relaxed teachers vs strict teachers vs administrators). Highschool demands the acquisition of group and team skills and the ability to work together. These are all essential parts of social development. Where you get the idea that public schools are all gangs and drugs I have no idea. In a recent anonymous survey at my highschool, only about ~30-35% admit to trying drugs, and only about 5% admit to using drugs weekly. Despite what you may think, public schools develop crucial interaction and social skills that home schooled students often lack. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

So factual info is now liberal bias?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

None of the items that you removed, Aschlafly, were non-cultural. Your edit was just a removal of all positive points. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave Death Threats Here]] 00:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I am with you Ferno. But no good will come of it. This project is doomed as it is totally unbelievable.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:May I ask why you (Schalfly) decided to remove the references to interest in certain subjects? Most if not all high schools offer advanced courses (if not AP/IB courses such as my highschool). These courses allow and promote students to pursue a deeper understanding of subjects that interest them. High schools are completely about promoting education and passion regarding knowledge and learning. I know that courses at my high school certainly have built a passion for my friends and I. I, for one, English, History, Physics, and Mathematics at a much more personal level than ever before. I absolutely love mathematics and am fascinated by it. Most people I have spoken to have some subject of passion born from such courses. Just because the bullet said something positive about public schools, does not make it wrong. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 11:21, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, we all know you hate public school but that doesn't mean there aren't any positive points to it. Those items are indeed cultural. Being "not particularly 'public school'" is not a reason for removal because several of the negative points are not necessarily public school either. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 13:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply re: reversion ==

* Having a wide range of new ideas, both positive and negative

: There is very little diversity of ideas in the public school culture. For example, it's difficult to find a single public school student who even realizes that classroom prayer has been censored, let alone oppose the censorship.

* Involvement in various sports events and other participation

: No more than any other student culture. On a percentage basis, actually, probably less.

* Membership to social groups such as chess clubs or more important groups such as school council or editing a student newspaper which helps social development

: Ditto.

* Genuine interest in math, literature, science, history, etc.

: This is absurd. An alarming percentage of public school students drop out. Public schools even have rules against taking courses above grade level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Where did you get that last little tidbit of information (above grade level restrictions). As I said prior, every school I have ever seen, heard of, or interacted with had advanced courses. In middle school I was placed on a 2 year advanced mathematics track, doing Algebra I (a freshman highschool course) at 7th grade. As a Junior, I have just completed two semesters of College level calculus in less than a semester and a half. It is not just my school, almost all schools offer Advanced Placement courses of some form. Some do not offer as many as others due to budget, faculty, and interest limitations, but nearly all do offer some form of it. As to the involvement aspect, do you have any statistics to justify your statements? High schools offer a wide variety of sports (at many different levels from intramural to Varsity) as well as clubs (subject based clubs, service clubs, political clubs, academic teams, and yes, religious clubs). As the wide range of new ideas, high school classrooms are often a place of debate. I know that in my classroom we have debated regarding thousands of subjects, and new, never before heard ideas to most of the class came up. I don't know where you get the idea that highschool is some form of brain washing, it is more the encouragement of intellectual pursuit. (As to the classroom prayer, students are 100% allowed to pray as they so desire, and form prayer clubs (we have one). The school simple cannot force a child to pray or allow a child to force another child to pray. This is protecting all religions and all individuals 1st amendment rights. If a muslim teacher tried to force your child to pray to Allah, would you oppose it?)
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: As to classroom prayer, if a group of students attempt to pray together at the beginning of the class, then they would be censored and probably disciplined. At one school last year, the valedictorian was thanking God (or Jesus) during her own speech and the school officials turned off the microphone. So either you're in [[liberal denial]] or your clueless about this.

:: As to your other points, public school students are generally not allowed to take courses above grade level. There are some AP courses available to high school students at various grades, but that does not contradict the general rule as stated. Also, activity participation by public school students is probably less than average by teenagers. Finally, you omitted the main point: an alarming percentage of public school students simply drop out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh? What is this alarming percentage? [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 14:30, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::There will of course be extreme examples of any ideology (just as there are examples of censorship of liberal ideas in some highschools) but on the average your statement does not hold true. And to quote you "Also, activity participation by public school students is probably less than average by teenagers." You even used the word probably! You are just making pure assumptions in order to make something fit your view. You hold no credibility until you show any reputable statistics (aka not from www.publicschoolsarehorrible.com) but any accredited scientific/statistical study (APA, the Department of Education, reputable universities). As to the grade level restrictions. If schools offer honors/AP/IB curriculum and opportunities for students to take higher level courses, what exactly else do you want them to do? Show me one school that clearly states in its operational manual that students "may not take any course deemed above their grade level." Good luck. Finally, the percentage of public school drop outs. This can be cited because statistics exist regarding this group (suddenly statistics are your friend?). Public schools repeatedly undergo statistical analysis, are constantly critiqued, and this produces large amounts of information. There is a standard MO for obtaining information regarding the success of public schools because they are, on the whole, standardized. Home schoolers, however, are not regulated by the government nearly as strictly (if at all) and thus are not subject to such analysis. Statistics regarding home schooled individuals are harder to obtain and create as there is no established channel by which to create them. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::If a group of students attempted to pray together at the beginning of the class, they would only be censored if they were disrupting the normal flow of the class. For example, if the teacher was not about to begin teaching and the other students would be free to talk anyway, the praying would be allowed. But if the teacher was trying to teach and they began to pray out loud, disrupting the class, they would probably be asked to stop (but I would doubt that they would be disciplined without a warning). '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]]

== I'll review all of the negative points ==

Why don't I review some of the other points?

* a lack of commitment to respect the religious civil rights of students has resulted in "religion-free zones."
Not at my school. We are pretty tolerant to anyone's religious beliefs. Even when teaching evolution, our teachers clearly tell us that it may or may not be true and that we just have to understand it, not believe it.

:: But the teachers will not mention alternative theories, and they will not allow substantive criticism of the theory of evolution, such the implausibility of any evolutionary path for the [[whale]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* sex education, homosexual curriculum and sexual abuse by school personnel has been referred to as a "red-light district" for students
We had a brief sexual education assembly, but it mostly talked about STDs and that protection does not always work. The only time that I can remember talking about homosexuality in class was when we were learning about the civil rights movement of the 1960s. There have been no reports of sexual abuse at our school as long as I have gone there. A few years after I left my middle school a teacher was accused by a student of accessing pornography using a school computer, but they couldn't find any proof of it.

:: [[Homosexual]] indoctrination in [[public schools]] has grown enormously in recent years. Sex abuse by public school personnel is rampant, and a whole series of newspaper articles uncovered this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* a culture of incompetence
I don't know what you mean by that, nor do I care

:: Not sure myself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* fashion that includes black (Goth) clothing
Black is a popular color for clothing, but there are only about 3 goths at our school

:: "Only" 3? That's 3 more than in other cultures. And I bet far more than 3 are preferring black clothing at your school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not entirely sure why black clothing would be cause for concern. I tend to wear black clothing on a fairly regular basis, primarily because I'm color-blind and I know black goes well with almost anything. The Pastor of my church also wears black rather frequently. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Obsessive black clothing is worn to signify lack of life, death, mourning, Goth culture, lack of faith, and intimidation. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Priests and nuns are well known for wearing black, and I doubt any would claim that they represent a lack of life, death, mourning, or goth culture. A black and white ball isn't about goth culture either. The Pilgrims also wore black. I wear black because its easier to do laundry - "light clothes and dark clothes". It also does a good job of not showing dirt. I believe you miss the interpretation of 'simplicity' with black. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:39, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

facial piercings and rings, tattoos, and male earrings
I don't notice many facial piercings or tattoos, but what is wrong with male earrings?

:: Look around more, and you'll begin to notice more. Observations, by the way, do not depend on it being wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* depressed demeanors
By this I'm assuming that you mean emos, but they have almost disappeared in the last year

:: I can often spot a public school student just by the depressed expression on his or her face.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* an absence of objective morality; instead, a principal will say someone 'made the wrong choice'
I have never heard a teacher use that phrase.

:: Listen to what principals say after a kid is busted for drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* a sense of hopelessness
I'm not sure what is meant by that, but I haven't encountered anything of the sort

:: Maybe you don't notice it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* a lack of critical thinking about liberal indoctrination
Totally wrong. My physics teacher (and most of the science teachers) doesn't believe global warming is caused by humans, and is disgusted at the lack of opposition to it in the science world.

:: That's good, and I'm impressed. But does your physics teacher describe where modern scientific theories have been proven wrong, such as the [[Origin of the Moon]] or the [[Piltdown Man]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: My physics teacher hasn't mentioned that, but my biology teacher talked about the origins of the moon theory once. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Well ... what did he say about the [[Origin of the Moon]]??? Doesn't sound like he taught he truth, or you would probably would have remembered it better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

''She'' explained it, but it was like 3 years ago and I don't really remember much about it. I read the article on here about it and it was essentially the same idea from what I remember. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, had ''she'' told the truth about it, you would have likely remembered. As it stands, what she said was meaningless because you don't recall it. She might as well said nothing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* compulsive profanity
This is one that I would have to agree with.

:: OK, I respect your admission here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* general inability to look someone in the eye
Maybe, but there are many reasons for that.

:: OK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* extreme anxiety
Again, I'm not sure what is meant by that or what the causes would be.

:: Causes are confusion, deprivation of [[faith]], and constantly being taught falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: The only thing I can think of would be anxiety over tests or other related stress like that. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps 10% of your class is regularly taking drugs, legal and illegal, for anxiety, and it's not due to tests. Your comment seems a bit out of touch.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

There really isn't much drug use at our school, and it is pretty looked down upon. We have had a lot of education regarding this and most people stay away from it. But I guess for anxiety I am a bit out of touch because it seems like the people who have these problems don't really want to talk about it. I don't think that this is somehow caused by public school though, I think that it is just youth in general. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: I'm confident there is more drug use -- legal and illegal -- than you realize at your school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Isn't that what I just basically said? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 20:17, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
I would have to agree with this one too.

:: OK, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* being so accustomed to censorship of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or politically incorrect
Nope, not at all

:: I doubt you'll hear in [[public school]] any criticism of the censorship of classroom prayer, or of the [[gay agenda]], or of the [[abortion]] industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: For criticism of school prayer see below. In U.S. History we discussed the gay rights movement, and our (liberal) teacher criticized the violence of the Stonewall riots in comparison to the peaceful Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King, but was also empathetic to the fact that gays were being arrested and subject to police brutality. Out teacher had criticized both sides of the abortion issue and has even used it to draw a comparison to the conflict over abolitionism. But I remember that he talked about people who are supposedly "pro-life", yet bomb abortion clinics. I have a hunch that he is not in favor of abortion, though, because he is very critical of the promiscuity today and has credited abortion to helping the increase of it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Your comment does not address or rebut any of my three points.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It does address your points because I was giving examples of how one of my teachers talked about those issues. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: No you didn't. You didn't mention (i) criticism of the censorship of classroom prayer, or (ii) of the [[gay agenda]], or (iii) of the [[abortion]] industry. You talked about abortion, not criticism of the abortion industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* lack of awareness that prayer is censored in public schools and that teachers' unions are very liberal
as I said above, we know that mandatory prayer is illegal. I didn't know that the teacher's union is liberal, though.

:: I'm not talking about mandatory prayer. I'm talking about voluntary prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Actually when I wrote that I was referring to something I had written on the top of my post, but I ended up deleting it, so it makes no sense now. We know that we are allowed to pray as long as it does not disrupt the class. Our U.S. History class debated this and we generally agreed that forced prayer violates freedom of religion. We also talked about some cases where teachers have jumped the gun and censored students while praying nondisruptively and decided that they had no right to do that. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: You're in denial. You haven't heard voluntary classroom prayer once during all your years in [[public school]]. Try it with some friends and ask to start a class with a voluntary prayer, and watch what happens. You'll be censored, if not disciplined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Does prayer have to be out loud? There is nothing wrong with praying silently, I don't know what benefit there is from praying out loud. God still hears you the same. Again, we have the right to pray as long as it does not disrupt the class. As one of my teachers said, "As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school". '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment here reflects the [[public school culture]] well. Yes, classroom prayer is censored but, no, teachers and students won't admit it. You've never once heard a single classroom prayer in all your years in public school, and won't try to say one with your classmates now. Rather than admit it, you insist that God doesn't want it! That's the [[public school culture]]: it censors and won't admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Again, why does prayer have to be spoken? Personally, I am uncomfortable praying out loud even in church. Doesn't Matthew 6:5-7 say something about this? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 20:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
<hr />
:::I went to DeLand High School. I was in the Air Force JROTC Program which had a student Chaplain who opened all our military activities (such as flag decommissioning) with a non denominational prayer. My drama club also prayed before every play. Also, the Campus Crusade for Christ prayed at the flag pole every morning before school. I'm not seeing how this was censored. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 14:53, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
* alcohol and drug abuse
I believe the statistic at our school for drinking alcohol was 34%, so indeed many drink but it is still a minority. I think that it was about 5% of the students at our school that use marijuana frequently, but really nothing worse

:: 34% is huge, and the 5% is an underestimate (or perhaps the "frequently" adjective is the trick there).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Alcohol is a particularly large problem at our school, but it is declining. The statistic for ever ''trying'' marijuana was much larger, but many students didn't find an appeal to it and never tried it again. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]]

<hr />

* disrespect for teachers
Again, a minority of the school is disrespectful to teachers. But at our age we all want to be 'rebels' so that kind of thing is expected

:: It's more in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm sure it is, but teachers never lose control over the classrooms, so it is not really a huge problem. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: No one said that teachers lose control over the classrooms, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It's demoralizing and degrading.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Disrepect against teachers is usually dealt with quickly and with punishment. I remember a kid that gave a teacher the middle finger and he got suspended for a week. They also told him that if he ever did anything like that again he would be expelled. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* bullying
Maybe a little, but nothing serious

:: OK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* gang activity
There are absolutely no gangs at our school (or in our area). The areas with gang activity are usually going to have it everywhere, not just in schools.

:: Rest assured that gang activity is a huge problem in some areas. Do you live in a wealthy suburb?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: I live in a middle-class suburb, so gang are never really a problem. My point is, though, that the gangs aren't caused by the school, gang activity just spills into it.'''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't think you realize what goes on in less wealthy [[public schools]]. Do you have metal detectors in your school? Many do, but it doesn't sound like yours does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

My point is that gang activity isn't caused by public schools or somehow unique to them. Gang activity is usually caused by poverty, where parents can't afford to send their kids to private schools or have the education or time to homeschool them. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]]

: I appreciate your analysis, but gangs often form in school and terrorize kids there. In some areas children are even afraid to go to [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

That is just a summary of my experience in the public school system. I think that it shows that a lot of the points are just presumed and don't really reflect a majority of public schoolers. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I've taught many of them, and see their contrast with [[homeschoolers]] firsthand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::My problem with this article is that it is stereotyping'''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: It's not stereotyping to describe a culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It is, because you are describing a small minority of teenagers and implying that everyone who goes to public school is just like them. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: It's a culture that censors and denies it is censoring, to give just one example. It's not just a minority, but rather a large majority. Observations about culture are not stereotyping, but important to understand what happens in that culture. Much of history class is spent learning about past cultures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Much of my Classics classes were spent learning about the good and bad of ancient cultures. Not just focusing on some guys perception of what is good and bad. Aschlafly, other people might have made their own observations. This list is what Aschlafly thinks and anyone trying to add their own observations will have their edits reverted. Kinda hard to have a collaborate encyclopedia when no other observations are allowed but yours, is it not?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:06, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==Poor Homeschooler behavior==
There's an exception to every rule - [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5764886.html these three young men were homeschooled], and it doesn't seem like this is model behavior? [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 18:53, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not model behavior, I agree! I also agree that there is often an exception to correlations. But the [[liberal]] attempt to disprove correlation with a counterexample is fallacious. See point #6 in [[liberal logic]]. It's amazing how many people are fooled by that trick. Would they also conclude from seeing a 100-year-old smoker that smoking does not cause lung cancer???

: And, I might add, often the counterexamples are not really as they appear. The article says the 17-year-olds are homeschooled. I wouldn't be surprised based on their conduct if they were expelled from or dropped out of [[public school]]; note that the newspaper does not say that they have always been homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

::So your point here is that an example of "bad behavior" from a public schooler indicts everyone who goes to a public school, but an incident of "bad behavior" from a homeschooler... Has no effect on anything? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 20:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Would conservatives conclude, from seeing a young singer with breast cancer, that hollywood types have more breast cancer?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, either you don't understand, or you think you'll fool others. I hope it's the former. Examples can indicate correlation. A counterexample cannot disprove it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Social Skills==
I think it is worthy of note that whereas some of the facts about public schoolers are true, in general public schoolers have much better social skills than homeschoolers. Also, don't you think it's rather unfair to list all of public schoolers' bad qualities and omit all of their good ones? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 20:35, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the PhyllisS. I added a few good points which were reverted by Aschlafly including development of social skills.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==United States==
I'm assuming that this article is about public school culture in the United States, because it certainly doesn't agree with my experience of other countries. I've added to the article to explain that. If this was a mistake please feel free to change it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Invalid Homosexuality Reference==

There are two problems with the reference used to back up the assertion that public school culture is identified with homosexuality. First, the article that is referenced is about gay rights groups advocating more teaching of awareness and tolerance for homosexuality in private schools (which is a bit much, I agree). That does nothing to back up an assertion that homosexuality itself is a part of the public school culture. Second, the article is from a Canadian source and is about a Canadian-based dispute, while this article starts of by focusing its scope on the public school culture in the United States. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:40, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

== Classic example of "Public school culture" ==

Anyone who needs an example of "public school culture" should go to our school's cross river rival Charlotte High School in Punta Gorda, Florida. The first thing you see besides the obnoxious looking tarpon (which was created by the school's [[cheerleading]] squad in the mid 90's, probably the most indecent cheerleading squad in the state giving the entire sport a terrible name) is a sign that states "Surveillance cameras in use." Over gloification of the school's athletic teams and lack of interest for academics has earned the school an impressive "D" grade from the state DOE whereas no other school in Charlotte County has ever had less than a "C" grade. Don't know about the prayer issue there, but I do know that our school (Port Charlotte in Port Charlotte, FL), which has been deemed an "A" grade school, sometimes has moments of silence, and has even had public prayers at certain events, such as the [[NJROTC]] annual inspection, being witnessed by the principal, superintendent for Charlotte County Public Schools, NJROTC Area 7 manager, many students, and over 100 parents. Charlotte HS is known for behavioral issues; [[Wikipedia]] can no longer be accessed from any CCPS school because girls at CHS could not resist vandalizing the site, and they'd probably do the same here if they were intelligent enough to find this site. I consider CHS more of a typical public school, meaning the type described here, and the type you see on the news and every TV show depicting a public school. I don't, however, believe that all public schools are like this or that all private schools are any better. I realize many people here don't like [[Wikipedia]], but anyone that wants to see how immature this world is, public school or otherwise, should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges and look at the diffs coming from the IPs. You'll see "public school culture" at its worst, and it will come from [[public schools]], [[private schools]], libraries, churches, people working for corporations, small businesses, government agencies, and non-profit organizations, mobile providers and WiFi hotspots, and residential accounts. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 13:43, 31 December 2009 (EST)

== Positive Aspects ==
I just had an edit listing some positive aspects of school culture removed. It is not entirely bad, or else we'd have
a LOT more sociopaths and psychopaths! Public schools grant benefits that many parts of the world do not enjoy. Things as basic as reading and writing seems commonplace now but remember that this was a rare skill just a thousand years ago. It helps provide a foundation for children to pursue their career choice whether it is science, mathematics, the arts, etc. It seems completely unfair to undermine public schools because of a difference of opinion. I say, list the negatives AND the positives and let the reader decide the value of public schools rationally. --[[User:Composer|Composer]] 01:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:You are full of liberal assumptions, Composer. I reviewed and approved of DouglasA's reversal. Your edits made it seem as if someone homeschooled doesn't have the opportunity for social interaction, or learning first-hand about different cultures. Those assumptions are simply not logical and wrong. Many public schools are completely devoid of different cultures. So how does that fact jibe with your edits? Open your mind and set yourself free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:05, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::The language could admittingly be toned down about the positive aspects if that's the problem. There are positive aspects to public school culture and hard working teachers doing the most they can within the structure. Homeschooling benefits are given a lot of detail and a lot of attention and the case for it has been made. You seem to assume I think homeschooling is inferior to public schools. I don't. However I don't believe public schools are the source of all ills as this article makes it seem to be. I'm just suggesting some balance, nothing drastic. Keep all the negative stuff in, I'm not calling for its removal either.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 07:30, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Public school culture

2010-02-16T06:20:38Z

Composer:

Where are you getting this information from? I am in public school and do not fit into ANY of those categories... AndrasK: 22:26 April 27 (EDT)
:Same here. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 22:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I can usually recognize someone as being from public school by (i) his or her fashion, (ii) his or her demeanor, and (iii) his or her outlook as conveyed by body language. Sometimes I need them to say something, and that reveals the remainder. I'm not kidding. The culture is pronounced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Your experiences justify making enormous generalizations? AndrasK: 22:37 April 27 (EDT)

: It's a culture. Objective observations can be made about cultures. Are you trying to censor that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok first of all, stop accusing me of trying to censor anything just because I am pointing out flaws in your Modus Operandi. And that is one example of high school culture. There are other aspects of high school culture, and I will add them to the article. AndrasK: 22:41 April 27 (EDT)

I dont think what you describe is 'Public school culture' andy. It is just modern fashion, popular music taste expressed through fashion etc. jeez, 40 years ago you could say so called 'public school culture' was long hair and bell bottoms. What you describe is modern culture. It is apart from schooling. Unless you're homeschooled and dont associate with modern culture.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:11, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Eye contact==
My excuse for not looking someone in the eye is the same as Japanese culture: a sign of respect.

The other reason might be because they are afraid of their true selves and being "figured out" by others. [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 18:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Non-Cultural?==
How are those points you removed uncultural, ASchlafly? It just looks like you removed all of the positive ones. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 10:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Hmm, good point. How is joining clubs/sports along with being pro-homosexual not part of public school culture? Aren't a lot of home schoolers barred from joining clubs even though they are "enrolled" in the school? -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 10:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The list is not about what people can join, but what their "culture" is (such as style, views, etc.).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:::OK, I re-added some and reworded so it reflects "culture" '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 18:46, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Another laughable page==

Please can you tell me something? This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, isnt it? The function of an encyclopedia is, as I understand it, to act as a reference for facts. This is just another list of things that someone doesn't like and likes to imagine describes another group.

As I understand it, part of the function of this website is to act as a learning resource and as something young people can use to research projects or homework from school. Given that pages like this keep appearing, do we honestly believe that any teacher who follows a reference to conservapedia will think that this is a site that is worth referencing in a piece of work? I can tell you, if someone I teach gave me a quote or a reference from an "encyclopedia" that contained this sort of thing, I would mark them down quite heavily. More so even than I would if they used Wikipedia, and my classes know that wikipedia is NOT a good source for referencing, but at least they TRY to have some sort of support for the claims they make on the pages.

Please, please please can we pull ourselves together and realise that lists like this are NOT encyclopedic in nature and should, at the very least, be labelled as some sort of talk or debate page. Otherwise we will drive away people looking for serious information.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 13:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::KimSell - you obviously know that access to opinion is often stifled in educational environments. I'm glad to see you have advised your students about referencing Wikipedia, but opinions on the actual schools they are attending - and the quality thereof - would be hard for them to find. It's important that your students understand the poor environment they are in, and so this is, indeed, an encyclopediac entry, and it should stay as is. There's enough liberal opinion out there, let's at least have some balance against it. [[User:NormanTebbitt|NormanTebbitt]] 14:31, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Well put, Norman. Kim, give me a lineup of students, and I can pick out the [[public school]] ones based on their appearance and, if necessary, some general conversation. That's objectively observable. It's not opinion. Let's not censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Sorry Andy, but a completely unsubstantiated claim about what you can do is NOT evidence of anything. Icould say that I can tell a Frenchman by the way his toes are, but we dont have an article called [[French Toes]] do we? No. Because it is not encyclopedic in nature.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: It is not a matter of denying them access to opinions. Opinions are fine. They have their place. But NOT in something that claims to be an encyclopedia. And sorry, but "soome guy on the internet says he can tell a public school student" does NOT make an article encyclopedic in nature. Open any real world encyclopedia and find me an article even slightly similar to this "article". You won't be able to do it, because real encyclopedias require something more than the opinion of some guy on the web. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 16:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions by ASchlafly==
Could you please explain why "An emphasis on social development" should not be in the article? You have reverted it twice, and as far as I can tell you have not given any explanation. Thank you. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 21:02, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

: There is nothing about the "public school culture" that embodies "an emphasis on social development." What does that phrase have in mind? Gang initiation? Drug use? It's absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Uhh actually high school is heavily involved with social development. In highschool one learns to communicate and interact efficiently and effectively with one's peers. One learns social rules regarding limits with different types of individuals (how to interact with students vs relaxed teachers vs strict teachers vs administrators). Highschool demands the acquisition of group and team skills and the ability to work together. These are all essential parts of social development. Where you get the idea that public schools are all gangs and drugs I have no idea. In a recent anonymous survey at my highschool, only about ~30-35% admit to trying drugs, and only about 5% admit to using drugs weekly. Despite what you may think, public schools develop crucial interaction and social skills that home schooled students often lack. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

So factual info is now liberal bias?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

None of the items that you removed, Aschlafly, were non-cultural. Your edit was just a removal of all positive points. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave Death Threats Here]] 00:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I am with you Ferno. But no good will come of it. This project is doomed as it is totally unbelievable.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:May I ask why you (Schalfly) decided to remove the references to interest in certain subjects? Most if not all high schools offer advanced courses (if not AP/IB courses such as my highschool). These courses allow and promote students to pursue a deeper understanding of subjects that interest them. High schools are completely about promoting education and passion regarding knowledge and learning. I know that courses at my high school certainly have built a passion for my friends and I. I, for one, English, History, Physics, and Mathematics at a much more personal level than ever before. I absolutely love mathematics and am fascinated by it. Most people I have spoken to have some subject of passion born from such courses. Just because the bullet said something positive about public schools, does not make it wrong. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 11:21, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, we all know you hate public school but that doesn't mean there aren't any positive points to it. Those items are indeed cultural. Being "not particularly 'public school'" is not a reason for removal because several of the negative points are not necessarily public school either. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 13:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply re: reversion ==

* Having a wide range of new ideas, both positive and negative

: There is very little diversity of ideas in the public school culture. For example, it's difficult to find a single public school student who even realizes that classroom prayer has been censored, let alone oppose the censorship.

* Involvement in various sports events and other participation

: No more than any other student culture. On a percentage basis, actually, probably less.

* Membership to social groups such as chess clubs or more important groups such as school council or editing a student newspaper which helps social development

: Ditto.

* Genuine interest in math, literature, science, history, etc.

: This is absurd. An alarming percentage of public school students drop out. Public schools even have rules against taking courses above grade level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Where did you get that last little tidbit of information (above grade level restrictions). As I said prior, every school I have ever seen, heard of, or interacted with had advanced courses. In middle school I was placed on a 2 year advanced mathematics track, doing Algebra I (a freshman highschool course) at 7th grade. As a Junior, I have just completed two semesters of College level calculus in less than a semester and a half. It is not just my school, almost all schools offer Advanced Placement courses of some form. Some do not offer as many as others due to budget, faculty, and interest limitations, but nearly all do offer some form of it. As to the involvement aspect, do you have any statistics to justify your statements? High schools offer a wide variety of sports (at many different levels from intramural to Varsity) as well as clubs (subject based clubs, service clubs, political clubs, academic teams, and yes, religious clubs). As the wide range of new ideas, high school classrooms are often a place of debate. I know that in my classroom we have debated regarding thousands of subjects, and new, never before heard ideas to most of the class came up. I don't know where you get the idea that highschool is some form of brain washing, it is more the encouragement of intellectual pursuit. (As to the classroom prayer, students are 100% allowed to pray as they so desire, and form prayer clubs (we have one). The school simple cannot force a child to pray or allow a child to force another child to pray. This is protecting all religions and all individuals 1st amendment rights. If a muslim teacher tried to force your child to pray to Allah, would you oppose it?)
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: As to classroom prayer, if a group of students attempt to pray together at the beginning of the class, then they would be censored and probably disciplined. At one school last year, the valedictorian was thanking God (or Jesus) during her own speech and the school officials turned off the microphone. So either you're in [[liberal denial]] or your clueless about this.

:: As to your other points, public school students are generally not allowed to take courses above grade level. There are some AP courses available to high school students at various grades, but that does not contradict the general rule as stated. Also, activity participation by public school students is probably less than average by teenagers. Finally, you omitted the main point: an alarming percentage of public school students simply drop out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh? What is this alarming percentage? [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 14:30, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::There will of course be extreme examples of any ideology (just as there are examples of censorship of liberal ideas in some highschools) but on the average your statement does not hold true. And to quote you "Also, activity participation by public school students is probably less than average by teenagers." You even used the word probably! You are just making pure assumptions in order to make something fit your view. You hold no credibility until you show any reputable statistics (aka not from www.publicschoolsarehorrible.com) but any accredited scientific/statistical study (APA, the Department of Education, reputable universities). As to the grade level restrictions. If schools offer honors/AP/IB curriculum and opportunities for students to take higher level courses, what exactly else do you want them to do? Show me one school that clearly states in its operational manual that students "may not take any course deemed above their grade level." Good luck. Finally, the percentage of public school drop outs. This can be cited because statistics exist regarding this group (suddenly statistics are your friend?). Public schools repeatedly undergo statistical analysis, are constantly critiqued, and this produces large amounts of information. There is a standard MO for obtaining information regarding the success of public schools because they are, on the whole, standardized. Home schoolers, however, are not regulated by the government nearly as strictly (if at all) and thus are not subject to such analysis. Statistics regarding home schooled individuals are harder to obtain and create as there is no established channel by which to create them. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::If a group of students attempted to pray together at the beginning of the class, they would only be censored if they were disrupting the normal flow of the class. For example, if the teacher was not about to begin teaching and the other students would be free to talk anyway, the praying would be allowed. But if the teacher was trying to teach and they began to pray out loud, disrupting the class, they would probably be asked to stop (but I would doubt that they would be disciplined without a warning). '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]]

== I'll review all of the negative points ==

Why don't I review some of the other points?

* a lack of commitment to respect the religious civil rights of students has resulted in "religion-free zones."
Not at my school. We are pretty tolerant to anyone's religious beliefs. Even when teaching evolution, our teachers clearly tell us that it may or may not be true and that we just have to understand it, not believe it.

:: But the teachers will not mention alternative theories, and they will not allow substantive criticism of the theory of evolution, such the implausibility of any evolutionary path for the [[whale]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* sex education, homosexual curriculum and sexual abuse by school personnel has been referred to as a "red-light district" for students
We had a brief sexual education assembly, but it mostly talked about STDs and that protection does not always work. The only time that I can remember talking about homosexuality in class was when we were learning about the civil rights movement of the 1960s. There have been no reports of sexual abuse at our school as long as I have gone there. A few years after I left my middle school a teacher was accused by a student of accessing pornography using a school computer, but they couldn't find any proof of it.

:: [[Homosexual]] indoctrination in [[public schools]] has grown enormously in recent years. Sex abuse by public school personnel is rampant, and a whole series of newspaper articles uncovered this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* a culture of incompetence
I don't know what you mean by that, nor do I care

:: Not sure myself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* fashion that includes black (Goth) clothing
Black is a popular color for clothing, but there are only about 3 goths at our school

:: "Only" 3? That's 3 more than in other cultures. And I bet far more than 3 are preferring black clothing at your school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not entirely sure why black clothing would be cause for concern. I tend to wear black clothing on a fairly regular basis, primarily because I'm color-blind and I know black goes well with almost anything. The Pastor of my church also wears black rather frequently. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Obsessive black clothing is worn to signify lack of life, death, mourning, Goth culture, lack of faith, and intimidation. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Priests and nuns are well known for wearing black, and I doubt any would claim that they represent a lack of life, death, mourning, or goth culture. A black and white ball isn't about goth culture either. The Pilgrims also wore black. I wear black because its easier to do laundry - "light clothes and dark clothes". It also does a good job of not showing dirt. I believe you miss the interpretation of 'simplicity' with black. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:39, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

facial piercings and rings, tattoos, and male earrings
I don't notice many facial piercings or tattoos, but what is wrong with male earrings?

:: Look around more, and you'll begin to notice more. Observations, by the way, do not depend on it being wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* depressed demeanors
By this I'm assuming that you mean emos, but they have almost disappeared in the last year

:: I can often spot a public school student just by the depressed expression on his or her face.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* an absence of objective morality; instead, a principal will say someone 'made the wrong choice'
I have never heard a teacher use that phrase.

:: Listen to what principals say after a kid is busted for drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* a sense of hopelessness
I'm not sure what is meant by that, but I haven't encountered anything of the sort

:: Maybe you don't notice it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* a lack of critical thinking about liberal indoctrination
Totally wrong. My physics teacher (and most of the science teachers) doesn't believe global warming is caused by humans, and is disgusted at the lack of opposition to it in the science world.

:: That's good, and I'm impressed. But does your physics teacher describe where modern scientific theories have been proven wrong, such as the [[Origin of the Moon]] or the [[Piltdown Man]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: My physics teacher hasn't mentioned that, but my biology teacher talked about the origins of the moon theory once. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Well ... what did he say about the [[Origin of the Moon]]??? Doesn't sound like he taught he truth, or you would probably would have remembered it better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

''She'' explained it, but it was like 3 years ago and I don't really remember much about it. I read the article on here about it and it was essentially the same idea from what I remember. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, had ''she'' told the truth about it, you would have likely remembered. As it stands, what she said was meaningless because you don't recall it. She might as well said nothing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* compulsive profanity
This is one that I would have to agree with.

:: OK, I respect your admission here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* general inability to look someone in the eye
Maybe, but there are many reasons for that.

:: OK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* extreme anxiety
Again, I'm not sure what is meant by that or what the causes would be.

:: Causes are confusion, deprivation of [[faith]], and constantly being taught falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: The only thing I can think of would be anxiety over tests or other related stress like that. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps 10% of your class is regularly taking drugs, legal and illegal, for anxiety, and it's not due to tests. Your comment seems a bit out of touch.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

There really isn't much drug use at our school, and it is pretty looked down upon. We have had a lot of education regarding this and most people stay away from it. But I guess for anxiety I am a bit out of touch because it seems like the people who have these problems don't really want to talk about it. I don't think that this is somehow caused by public school though, I think that it is just youth in general. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: I'm confident there is more drug use -- legal and illegal -- than you realize at your school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Isn't that what I just basically said? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 20:17, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
I would have to agree with this one too.

:: OK, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* being so accustomed to censorship of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or politically incorrect
Nope, not at all

:: I doubt you'll hear in [[public school]] any criticism of the censorship of classroom prayer, or of the [[gay agenda]], or of the [[abortion]] industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: For criticism of school prayer see below. In U.S. History we discussed the gay rights movement, and our (liberal) teacher criticized the violence of the Stonewall riots in comparison to the peaceful Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King, but was also empathetic to the fact that gays were being arrested and subject to police brutality. Out teacher had criticized both sides of the abortion issue and has even used it to draw a comparison to the conflict over abolitionism. But I remember that he talked about people who are supposedly "pro-life", yet bomb abortion clinics. I have a hunch that he is not in favor of abortion, though, because he is very critical of the promiscuity today and has credited abortion to helping the increase of it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Your comment does not address or rebut any of my three points.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It does address your points because I was giving examples of how one of my teachers talked about those issues. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: No you didn't. You didn't mention (i) criticism of the censorship of classroom prayer, or (ii) of the [[gay agenda]], or (iii) of the [[abortion]] industry. You talked about abortion, not criticism of the abortion industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* lack of awareness that prayer is censored in public schools and that teachers' unions are very liberal
as I said above, we know that mandatory prayer is illegal. I didn't know that the teacher's union is liberal, though.

:: I'm not talking about mandatory prayer. I'm talking about voluntary prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Actually when I wrote that I was referring to something I had written on the top of my post, but I ended up deleting it, so it makes no sense now. We know that we are allowed to pray as long as it does not disrupt the class. Our U.S. History class debated this and we generally agreed that forced prayer violates freedom of religion. We also talked about some cases where teachers have jumped the gun and censored students while praying nondisruptively and decided that they had no right to do that. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: You're in denial. You haven't heard voluntary classroom prayer once during all your years in [[public school]]. Try it with some friends and ask to start a class with a voluntary prayer, and watch what happens. You'll be censored, if not disciplined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Does prayer have to be out loud? There is nothing wrong with praying silently, I don't know what benefit there is from praying out loud. God still hears you the same. Again, we have the right to pray as long as it does not disrupt the class. As one of my teachers said, "As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school". '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment here reflects the [[public school culture]] well. Yes, classroom prayer is censored but, no, teachers and students won't admit it. You've never once heard a single classroom prayer in all your years in public school, and won't try to say one with your classmates now. Rather than admit it, you insist that God doesn't want it! That's the [[public school culture]]: it censors and won't admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Again, why does prayer have to be spoken? Personally, I am uncomfortable praying out loud even in church. Doesn't Matthew 6:5-7 say something about this? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 20:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
<hr />
:::I went to DeLand High School. I was in the Air Force JROTC Program which had a student Chaplain who opened all our military activities (such as flag decommissioning) with a non denominational prayer. My drama club also prayed before every play. Also, the Campus Crusade for Christ prayed at the flag pole every morning before school. I'm not seeing how this was censored. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 14:53, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
* alcohol and drug abuse
I believe the statistic at our school for drinking alcohol was 34%, so indeed many drink but it is still a minority. I think that it was about 5% of the students at our school that use marijuana frequently, but really nothing worse

:: 34% is huge, and the 5% is an underestimate (or perhaps the "frequently" adjective is the trick there).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Alcohol is a particularly large problem at our school, but it is declining. The statistic for ever ''trying'' marijuana was much larger, but many students didn't find an appeal to it and never tried it again. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]]

<hr />

* disrespect for teachers
Again, a minority of the school is disrespectful to teachers. But at our age we all want to be 'rebels' so that kind of thing is expected

:: It's more in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm sure it is, but teachers never lose control over the classrooms, so it is not really a huge problem. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: No one said that teachers lose control over the classrooms, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It's demoralizing and degrading.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Disrepect against teachers is usually dealt with quickly and with punishment. I remember a kid that gave a teacher the middle finger and he got suspended for a week. They also told him that if he ever did anything like that again he would be expelled. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* bullying
Maybe a little, but nothing serious

:: OK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

* gang activity
There are absolutely no gangs at our school (or in our area). The areas with gang activity are usually going to have it everywhere, not just in schools.

:: Rest assured that gang activity is a huge problem in some areas. Do you live in a wealthy suburb?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: I live in a middle-class suburb, so gang are never really a problem. My point is, though, that the gangs aren't caused by the school, gang activity just spills into it.'''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't think you realize what goes on in less wealthy [[public schools]]. Do you have metal detectors in your school? Many do, but it doesn't sound like yours does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

My point is that gang activity isn't caused by public schools or somehow unique to them. Gang activity is usually caused by poverty, where parents can't afford to send their kids to private schools or have the education or time to homeschool them. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]]

: I appreciate your analysis, but gangs often form in school and terrorize kids there. In some areas children are even afraid to go to [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

<hr />

That is just a summary of my experience in the public school system. I think that it shows that a lot of the points are just presumed and don't really reflect a majority of public schoolers. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I've taught many of them, and see their contrast with [[homeschoolers]] firsthand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::My problem with this article is that it is stereotyping'''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 15:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: It's not stereotyping to describe a culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It is, because you are describing a small minority of teenagers and implying that everyone who goes to public school is just like them. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: It's a culture that censors and denies it is censoring, to give just one example. It's not just a minority, but rather a large majority. Observations about culture are not stereotyping, but important to understand what happens in that culture. Much of history class is spent learning about past cultures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Much of my Classics classes were spent learning about the good and bad of ancient cultures. Not just focusing on some guys perception of what is good and bad. Aschlafly, other people might have made their own observations. This list is what Aschlafly thinks and anyone trying to add their own observations will have their edits reverted. Kinda hard to have a collaborate encyclopedia when no other observations are allowed but yours, is it not?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:06, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==Poor Homeschooler behavior==
There's an exception to every rule - [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5764886.html these three young men were homeschooled], and it doesn't seem like this is model behavior? [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 18:53, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not model behavior, I agree! I also agree that there is often an exception to correlations. But the [[liberal]] attempt to disprove correlation with a counterexample is fallacious. See point #6 in [[liberal logic]]. It's amazing how many people are fooled by that trick. Would they also conclude from seeing a 100-year-old smoker that smoking does not cause lung cancer???

: And, I might add, often the counterexamples are not really as they appear. The article says the 17-year-olds are homeschooled. I wouldn't be surprised based on their conduct if they were expelled from or dropped out of [[public school]]; note that the newspaper does not say that they have always been homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

::So your point here is that an example of "bad behavior" from a public schooler indicts everyone who goes to a public school, but an incident of "bad behavior" from a homeschooler... Has no effect on anything? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 20:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Would conservatives conclude, from seeing a young singer with breast cancer, that hollywood types have more breast cancer?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, either you don't understand, or you think you'll fool others. I hope it's the former. Examples can indicate correlation. A counterexample cannot disprove it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Social Skills==
I think it is worthy of note that whereas some of the facts about public schoolers are true, in general public schoolers have much better social skills than homeschoolers. Also, don't you think it's rather unfair to list all of public schoolers' bad qualities and omit all of their good ones? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 20:35, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the PhyllisS. I added a few good points which were reverted by Aschlafly including development of social skills.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==United States==
I'm assuming that this article is about public school culture in the United States, because it certainly doesn't agree with my experience of other countries. I've added to the article to explain that. If this was a mistake please feel free to change it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Invalid Homosexuality Reference==

There are two problems with the reference used to back up the assertion that public school culture is identified with homosexuality. First, the article that is referenced is about gay rights groups advocating more teaching of awareness and tolerance for homosexuality in private schools (which is a bit much, I agree). That does nothing to back up an assertion that homosexuality itself is a part of the public school culture. Second, the article is from a Canadian source and is about a Canadian-based dispute, while this article starts of by focusing its scope on the public school culture in the United States. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:40, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

== Classic example of "Public school culture" ==

Anyone who needs an example of "public school culture" should go to our school's cross river rival Charlotte High School in Punta Gorda, Florida. The first thing you see besides the obnoxious looking tarpon (which was created by the school's [[cheerleading]] squad in the mid 90's, probably the most indecent cheerleading squad in the state giving the entire sport a terrible name) is a sign that states "Surveillance cameras in use." Over gloification of the school's athletic teams and lack of interest for academics has earned the school an impressive "D" grade from the state DOE whereas no other school in Charlotte County has ever had less than a "C" grade. Don't know about the prayer issue there, but I do know that our school (Port Charlotte in Port Charlotte, FL), which has been deemed an "A" grade school, sometimes has moments of silence, and has even had public prayers at certain events, such as the [[NJROTC]] annual inspection, being witnessed by the principal, superintendent for Charlotte County Public Schools, NJROTC Area 7 manager, many students, and over 100 parents. Charlotte HS is known for behavioral issues; [[Wikipedia]] can no longer be accessed from any CCPS school because girls at CHS could not resist vandalizing the site, and they'd probably do the same here if they were intelligent enough to find this site. I consider CHS more of a typical public school, meaning the type described here, and the type you see on the news and every TV show depicting a public school. I don't, however, believe that all public schools are like this or that all private schools are any better. I realize many people here don't like [[Wikipedia]], but anyone that wants to see how immature this world is, public school or otherwise, should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges and look at the diffs coming from the IPs. You'll see "public school culture" at its worst, and it will come from [[public schools]], [[private schools]], libraries, churches, people working for corporations, small businesses, government agencies, and non-profit organizations, mobile providers and WiFi hotspots, and residential accounts. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 13:43, 31 December 2009 (EST)

== Positive Aspects ==
I just had an edit listing some positive aspects of school culture removed. It is not entirely bad, or else we'd have
a LOT more sociopaths and psychopaths! Public schools grant benefits that many parts of the world do not enjoy. Things as basic as reading and writing seems commonplace now but remember that this was a rare skill just a thousand years ago. It helps provide a foundation for children to pursue their career choice whether it is science, mathematics, the arts, etc. It seems completely unfair to undermine public schools because of a difference of opinion. I say, list the negatives AND the positives and let the reader decide the value of public schools rationally.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 01:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Public school culture

2010-02-16T06:01:46Z

Composer: Undo revision 754710 by AlexWD (Talk) ((It's not ALL bad. There are a lot of hard working teachers that do a lot of good in the public system.))

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the first things one sees when entering the visitor's parking lot at Charlotte High School, a public school in Punta Gorda, Florida, is a sign informing vistors of the on-campus surveillance cameras.]]
'''Public school culture''' is a [[culture]] fostered in [[public school]],<ref>Public schools are the government-controlled schools in the United States. In other countries different terms are used to describe the government schools.</ref> which is characterized by:

*complete [[censorship]] of any [[classroom prayer]]
*a lack of commitment to respect the [[Religion|religious]] [[Civil Rights Movement|civil rights]] of [[student]]s has resulted in "religion-free zones." <ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Education&id=88 Religious Liberty and the Public Schools], [[Robert P. George]], ''[[Catholic League]]'', October 1999</ref>
*[[sex education]], [[Homosexuality in Schools|homosexual curriculum]] and sexual abuse by school personnel has been referred to as a "red-light district" for students <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59602 Public schools: The new red-light district?], [[Olivia St. John]], ''[[World Net Daily]]'', January 09, 2008</ref>
*a culture of incompetence <ref>[http://www.maa.org/features/083104pointcallforaction.html POINT: A Call for Action], [[Rick Norwood]], ''[[Mathematical Association of America|The Mathematical Association of America]]'', Accessed May 4, 2008</ref><ref name="Mixed Results">John Merrow, [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec08/nolaupdate_07-24.html Mixed Results for School Reform Efforts in New Orleans]. ''The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer''. PBS: July 24, 2008</ref>
* fashion that includes black ([[Goth (subculture)|Goth]]) clothing
* facial piercings and rings, [[tattoo]]s, and male earrings
* [[depressed]] demeanors (a so-called "emo" culture amongst some teens)
* an absence of objective [[morality]]; instead, a principal will say someone "made the wrong choice"
* a sense of hopelessness
* a lack of [[critical thinking]] about [[liberal]] [[Indoctrinate|indoctrination]]
* [[compulsive profanity]]
* general inability to look someone in the eye
* lewd behavior euphemistically referred to as "PDA" or "Public Display of Affection" <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0523/p03s01-ussc.html</ref>
* racial discrimination resulting from set cliques of racially homogeneous students <ref>http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/lifestyle/nearly-all-high-school-cliques-are-racially-divided-study_10025532.html</ref>
* tolerance of homosexuality due to school-supported and funded groups <ref>http://www.gsanetwork.org/</ref>
* extreme [[anxiety]]
* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
* being so accustomed to [[censorship]] of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or [[politically incorrect]]
* lack of awareness that [[prayer]] is censored in [[public schools]] and that teachers' [[Labor union|unions]] are very [[liberal]]
* [[alcohol]] and [[drug abuse]]
* disrespect for teachers
* [[bullying]]
* [[gang]] activity <ref>[http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080427/NEWS01/899830802/0/biz Gangs recruiting at middle schools], [[Diana Hefley]] and [[Kaitlin Manry]], ''[[Daily Herald]]'', April 27, 2008</ref>
* lack of proper etiquette and manners
* glorification of certain groups such as athletic teams and outcast of others
* bitter hate for rival schools and their students
* corrupt and abusive teachers and school administrators<ref>[http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/21/23891.htm "School Says Official Embezzled Millions"]. ''Court House News''. January 21, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003744.cfm "National Media Largely Ignore Public-School Sex Scandals"] ''Citizenlink''. 01.26.2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2008/05/19/not-catholic-church-national-media-mum-huge-l-school-sex-abuse-scandal "Not the Catholic Church? MSM Mum About Huge L.A. School Sex Abuse Scandal"]. Dave Pierre. ''NewsBusters''. May 19, 2008</ref>
* censorship of conservative sources of news and information
* violence and [[Columbine High School|school shootings]]

==Positive Aspects==
* Learning first-hand about various cultures and ideas
* A more well rounded social life due to the interactions with a variety of students
* Accessibility to learning materials (libraries, computers, textbooks)
* Learning critical thinking and applying it in problem solving.
* Professionalism (How to write a resume, essay, thesis, etc. Mathematical basics. Importance of teamwork. Discipline.)

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

[[Category:Culture]]

Talk:Great Flood

2010-02-15T15:40:32Z

Composer:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::...um... this is relevant to the article HOW?![[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood? {{unsigned|Trajsmith}}

:Please, learn to use a spell-check function.--[[User:M|M]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The population prior to the flood was not recorded. We have all rejected God (although some have repented of that and accepted Him), so we ''all'' deserve the death sentence. Even Noah and his family. But God chose to not give Noah and his family what they deserved (choosing them because Noah was, humanly speaking, "righteous"), and didn't impose the deserved death penalty on Noah and his family. He even had Noah preach to the people, in order to save them from their destruction, but to no avail. So instead of (implicitly) criticising God for giving the people what they deserved, we should be thanking Him for saving the ones willing to be saved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::WAIT a minute - the penalty for rejecting God, something that we apparently do by virtue of being born, is death? That seems a little screwed up. Most of the world doesn't even ''have'' the death penalty anymore.--[[User:M|M]] 23:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God gave us life, so if we reject Him, we are rejecting the life that he gave us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::That just doesn't parse...parents give their children life, but no civilised society gives parents the right of life or death over their offspring. Parents are responsible ''to'' and ''for'' their children. (Unless you really believe that it would be a good idea to let parents kill disobedient kids?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Parents are the instruments by which God gives the children life. They have the responsibility of raising those children for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That's because you don't appreciate how much involvement God has/had "behind the scenes". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

The Article states "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family". One would then assume only the descendents of Noah and his family would be able to pass on the story of the flood.

The flood legends in the folklore of people from around the world can only be referring to the same event if all these people are related no Noah and his family? According to [[Flood Geology]] the flood occured around 2350 B.C some 4357 years ago. When and how did Hawains and Australian Aboriginies, for example, become ''racially'' different to Noah and his family? I think the article should explain how various human poupulations descended from Noah and his family came to look so different to one another.

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

:That is something that should be explained, but not in this article, I think. This is about the historical records of the Flood, and just like Flood Geology is in a separate article, this aspect should be too, although I'm not sure at the moment which article it should be in. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps in the article [[Homo sapiens]]. I'm not too hot on science, you seem to know a lot about these things. Perhaps you could add the stuff to the appropriate article. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, Homo sapiens might be appropriate. Now to find the time, after all the other things on my to-do list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution and a Worldwide Flood: Not mutually exclusive? ==

So, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think that the idea of a worldwide flood would be invalid without accepting evolution in a way similar to how it is presented in schools and books and the internet today.

Here's the deal. Fish live in many different habitats, their survival dependent on several factors including water pH, temperature, and the most important to my idea, salinity. While there are some fish with astoundingly large salt tolerancies, there are others who cannot live except for in a very stable, specific environment, including two well known staples of many American's diets, the catfish and the tuna. These fish would die if they were in an environment with a salinity that was very much different than they are used to, so my point is this. During a worldwide flood, water salinity would be decreased from what it normally is in various parts of the oceans, and it would be increased from that of any freshwater environment. Assuming that what I just said is true, and that evolution is false, we should not have freshwater fish, saltwater fish with low tolerncy for the salinity of their environment being changed.

This clearly isn't true, though, as none of the fish from this particular site (http://fins.actwin.com/species/index.php?t=3&f=1) would exist if not for evolutionary mechanics, presuming, that is, that you should find the idea of a worldwide flood indisputable. Basically, if you believe in the worldwide flood, evolution would kind of go hand in hand.
--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the problem is that what you call "evolution" is not what creationists object to. That is, creationists disagree with claims that there are mechanisms to add new genetic information to creatures, which is required for [[types of evolution|goo-to-you evolution]]. Some adaptations that you call "evolution" are not such mechanisms. With that brief explanation in mind, have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

When do we get to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 15:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Not before you explain how that is relevant to this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:18, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't the flood caused by the melting of the polar icecap, similar to what is happening now? Soon we'll all be under water.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:No. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==Ubiquity of the flood story==
"Cultures around the world record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories." Really? I'd like to see some sources on that. Normally I'd just add a cite on the article, but that's sure to be reverted. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: It would have been reverted in this case, because that is an introductory and general statement. The support for it is provided, with references, in the body of the article. The article does not say that the stories are "ubiquitous". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general? ==

I got to this article when I put in the word "flood", and expected an article about floods in general. Why is it that we don't have an article like that?

This is exactly the kind of thing that liberals make fun of us for. We claim to be a viable alternative to wikipedia, yet we are missing articles on so many different things.

Who here is in favor of making an article on floods in general?

We are an educational website, after all.

{{unsigned|JackSmith}}
:Good point. I'll do that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: Simple: We're only about 18 months old, <s>and nobody's written one yet</s>. Thanks Tom. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Actually one was done, so I don't know the answer. Anyway, thanks to Tom we have one again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Acceptance section==

It would be grammatically correct to change the word "true" to "truth". However, the article is locked and I cannot do this. --[[User:Trevor|Trevor]]
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== A blocked user questions habitat ==

Blocked [[User:Georgecross]] added this to the end of the "Criticisms" section on the main page. As this in itself wasn't the reason for his block, nor was it inappropriate content, but it didn't fit into the article as it stood, I decided it'd be better to add it here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 09:45, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Noah would have had to have sailed around the world to drop off animals in the correct locations, such as Polar bears in the South Pole Penguins in the north pole, however the habbitats that these animals live in would probably have been destroyed. Noah also had to stop the starving caniverous creatures from eating all the other animals, presumably by feeding them road potatoes. However the real problems for Noah would have started when he finally go to home then he would of had to have planted crops and repatriate the earth.

== Opening Statement ==
"Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood"

This is a bit misleading to say the least. The evidence of cuneiforms were found around this time and five thousand years before that a vast amount of evidence of a 'token currency' society existed around the cradle of civilization. See this for a basic summary: http://heritage-key.com/world/cuneiform-birth-writing

Historical artefacts from before 3000 BC do exist and are genuine. The phrase should be reworded as such to acknowledge their validity. This is an archaeological criticism.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 09:47, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:Do you know what virtually means? If you're interested in learning more about the history of writing, look at [[History of Writing|the page I wrote on it]]. The fact that you cite a "token currency" dating to five thousand years before 3000 BC, ie, 8000 BC, speaks volumes about your worldview. Take a look at some of our ancient history articles with an open mind. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:50, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::In addition to Jacob's point, there is no independent verification of any writings or civilizations before about 3000 B.C. Your cite is to musings by an "English Literature graduate, who currently works as a writer and journalist in London. He enjoys ancient history, theatre and sport." British journalists are typically very [[liberal]], which can obviously interfere with their objectivity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:57, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::The section on proto-script lacks exact dates which we do know of. I will not get into here. I'm just suggesting the phrase could be better worded. Also mentioning trees is another problem as Prometheus, a famous tree in Nevada, has been estimated at 5,000 years old. Virtually is a bit too strong a word. Virtually is suggesting 'almost entirely'. It should be more along the lines of 'limited' or 'moderate' when interpreting the amount of data available. --[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:08, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::Estimated by who? What assumptions did they make in producing this estimate? I encourage you to think critically about what you've been told. A majority of Americans have accepted the Bible literally. Maybe you should stop thinking we all suffer from some kind of mass delusion, and instead examine your own belief systems. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:10, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::::This is not an attack on a belief system or suggesting anyone is delusional. This is just a discussion on the phrasing and if it should be changed. There are many 'oldest trees' in America that a lot of parks are proud of and a lot of museums with historical data that can be researched and double checked if one takes the time. This is not anti-conservative, merely pro-knowledge of the things we do know. If there is a fake or a fraud in the given claims of ancient civilizations, and I'm sure there are plenty, it can be addressed. But suggesting the scholarly world had no evidence and knew nothing about civilization before 3,000 BC is simply too misleading and frankly, dishonest.--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:20, 15 February 2010 (EST)

I can't speak for any other editors, but I personally am not going to debate you anymore on this. Contribute constructively, or leave. Don't come here to pick fights. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:24, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Well it's just a suggestion. I think it is only courteous to discuss changing the opening statement, before going ahead and editing it. I didn't expect it to be a topic of dispute. I'm not making any changes to it.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:40, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Great Flood

2010-02-15T15:20:59Z

Composer:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::...um... this is relevant to the article HOW?![[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood? {{unsigned|Trajsmith}}

:Please, learn to use a spell-check function.--[[User:M|M]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The population prior to the flood was not recorded. We have all rejected God (although some have repented of that and accepted Him), so we ''all'' deserve the death sentence. Even Noah and his family. But God chose to not give Noah and his family what they deserved (choosing them because Noah was, humanly speaking, "righteous"), and didn't impose the deserved death penalty on Noah and his family. He even had Noah preach to the people, in order to save them from their destruction, but to no avail. So instead of (implicitly) criticising God for giving the people what they deserved, we should be thanking Him for saving the ones willing to be saved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::WAIT a minute - the penalty for rejecting God, something that we apparently do by virtue of being born, is death? That seems a little screwed up. Most of the world doesn't even ''have'' the death penalty anymore.--[[User:M|M]] 23:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God gave us life, so if we reject Him, we are rejecting the life that he gave us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::That just doesn't parse...parents give their children life, but no civilised society gives parents the right of life or death over their offspring. Parents are responsible ''to'' and ''for'' their children. (Unless you really believe that it would be a good idea to let parents kill disobedient kids?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Parents are the instruments by which God gives the children life. They have the responsibility of raising those children for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That's because you don't appreciate how much involvement God has/had "behind the scenes". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

The Article states "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family". One would then assume only the descendents of Noah and his family would be able to pass on the story of the flood.

The flood legends in the folklore of people from around the world can only be referring to the same event if all these people are related no Noah and his family? According to [[Flood Geology]] the flood occured around 2350 B.C some 4357 years ago. When and how did Hawains and Australian Aboriginies, for example, become ''racially'' different to Noah and his family? I think the article should explain how various human poupulations descended from Noah and his family came to look so different to one another.

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

:That is something that should be explained, but not in this article, I think. This is about the historical records of the Flood, and just like Flood Geology is in a separate article, this aspect should be too, although I'm not sure at the moment which article it should be in. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps in the article [[Homo sapiens]]. I'm not too hot on science, you seem to know a lot about these things. Perhaps you could add the stuff to the appropriate article. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, Homo sapiens might be appropriate. Now to find the time, after all the other things on my to-do list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution and a Worldwide Flood: Not mutually exclusive? ==

So, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think that the idea of a worldwide flood would be invalid without accepting evolution in a way similar to how it is presented in schools and books and the internet today.

Here's the deal. Fish live in many different habitats, their survival dependent on several factors including water pH, temperature, and the most important to my idea, salinity. While there are some fish with astoundingly large salt tolerancies, there are others who cannot live except for in a very stable, specific environment, including two well known staples of many American's diets, the catfish and the tuna. These fish would die if they were in an environment with a salinity that was very much different than they are used to, so my point is this. During a worldwide flood, water salinity would be decreased from what it normally is in various parts of the oceans, and it would be increased from that of any freshwater environment. Assuming that what I just said is true, and that evolution is false, we should not have freshwater fish, saltwater fish with low tolerncy for the salinity of their environment being changed.

This clearly isn't true, though, as none of the fish from this particular site (http://fins.actwin.com/species/index.php?t=3&f=1) would exist if not for evolutionary mechanics, presuming, that is, that you should find the idea of a worldwide flood indisputable. Basically, if you believe in the worldwide flood, evolution would kind of go hand in hand.
--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the problem is that what you call "evolution" is not what creationists object to. That is, creationists disagree with claims that there are mechanisms to add new genetic information to creatures, which is required for [[types of evolution|goo-to-you evolution]]. Some adaptations that you call "evolution" are not such mechanisms. With that brief explanation in mind, have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

When do we get to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 15:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Not before you explain how that is relevant to this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:18, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't the flood caused by the melting of the polar icecap, similar to what is happening now? Soon we'll all be under water.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:No. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==Ubiquity of the flood story==
"Cultures around the world record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories." Really? I'd like to see some sources on that. Normally I'd just add a cite on the article, but that's sure to be reverted. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: It would have been reverted in this case, because that is an introductory and general statement. The support for it is provided, with references, in the body of the article. The article does not say that the stories are "ubiquitous". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general? ==

I got to this article when I put in the word "flood", and expected an article about floods in general. Why is it that we don't have an article like that?

This is exactly the kind of thing that liberals make fun of us for. We claim to be a viable alternative to wikipedia, yet we are missing articles on so many different things.

Who here is in favor of making an article on floods in general?

We are an educational website, after all.

{{unsigned|JackSmith}}
:Good point. I'll do that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: Simple: We're only about 18 months old, <s>and nobody's written one yet</s>. Thanks Tom. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Actually one was done, so I don't know the answer. Anyway, thanks to Tom we have one again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Acceptance section==

It would be grammatically correct to change the word "true" to "truth". However, the article is locked and I cannot do this. --[[User:Trevor|Trevor]]
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== A blocked user questions habitat ==

Blocked [[User:Georgecross]] added this to the end of the "Criticisms" section on the main page. As this in itself wasn't the reason for his block, nor was it inappropriate content, but it didn't fit into the article as it stood, I decided it'd be better to add it here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 09:45, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Noah would have had to have sailed around the world to drop off animals in the correct locations, such as Polar bears in the South Pole Penguins in the north pole, however the habbitats that these animals live in would probably have been destroyed. Noah also had to stop the starving caniverous creatures from eating all the other animals, presumably by feeding them road potatoes. However the real problems for Noah would have started when he finally go to home then he would of had to have planted crops and repatriate the earth.

== Opening Statement ==
"Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood"

This is a bit misleading to say the least. The evidence of cuneiforms were found around this time and five thousand years before that a vast amount of evidence of a 'token currency' society existed around the cradle of civilization. See this for a basic summary: http://heritage-key.com/world/cuneiform-birth-writing

Historical artefacts from before 3000 BC do exist and are genuine. The phrase should be reworded as such to acknowledge their validity. This is an archaeological criticism.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 09:47, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:Do you know what virtually means? If you're interested in learning more about the history of writing, look at [[History of Writing|the page I wrote on it]]. The fact that you cite a "token currency" dating to five thousand years before 3000 BC, ie, 8000 BC, speaks volumes about your worldview. Take a look at some of our ancient history articles with an open mind. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:50, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::In addition to Jacob's point, there is no independent verification of any writings or civilizations before about 3000 B.C. Your cite is to musings by an "English Literature graduate, who currently works as a writer and journalist in London. He enjoys ancient history, theatre and sport." British journalists are typically very [[liberal]], which can obviously interfere with their objectivity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:57, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::The section on proto-script lacks exact dates which we do know of. I will not get into here. I'm just suggesting the phrase could be better worded. Also mentioning trees is another problem as Prometheus, a famous tree in Nevada, has been estimated at 5,000 years old. Virtually is a bit too strong a word. Virtually is suggesting 'almost entirely'. It should be more along the lines of 'limited' or 'moderate' when interpreting the amount of data available. --[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:08, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::Estimated by who? What assumptions did they make in producing this estimate? I encourage you to think critically about what you've been told. A majority of Americans have accepted the Bible literally. Maybe you should stop thinking we all suffer from some kind of mass delusion, and instead examine your own belief systems. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:10, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::::This is not an attack on a belief system or suggesting anyone is delusional. This is just a discussion on the phrasing and if it should be changed. There are many 'oldest trees' in America that a lot of parks are proud of and a lot of museums with historical data that can be researched and double checked if one takes the time. This is not anti-conservative, merely pro-knowledge of the things we do know. If there is a fake or a fraud in the given claims of ancient civilizations, and I'm sure there are plenty, it can be addressed. But suggesting the scholarly world had no evidence and knew nothing about civilization before 3,000 BC is simply too misleading and frankly, dishonest.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:20, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Great Flood

2010-02-15T15:08:29Z

Composer: /* Opening Statement */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::...um... this is relevant to the article HOW?![[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood? {{unsigned|Trajsmith}}

:Please, learn to use a spell-check function.--[[User:M|M]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The population prior to the flood was not recorded. We have all rejected God (although some have repented of that and accepted Him), so we ''all'' deserve the death sentence. Even Noah and his family. But God chose to not give Noah and his family what they deserved (choosing them because Noah was, humanly speaking, "righteous"), and didn't impose the deserved death penalty on Noah and his family. He even had Noah preach to the people, in order to save them from their destruction, but to no avail. So instead of (implicitly) criticising God for giving the people what they deserved, we should be thanking Him for saving the ones willing to be saved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::WAIT a minute - the penalty for rejecting God, something that we apparently do by virtue of being born, is death? That seems a little screwed up. Most of the world doesn't even ''have'' the death penalty anymore.--[[User:M|M]] 23:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God gave us life, so if we reject Him, we are rejecting the life that he gave us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::That just doesn't parse...parents give their children life, but no civilised society gives parents the right of life or death over their offspring. Parents are responsible ''to'' and ''for'' their children. (Unless you really believe that it would be a good idea to let parents kill disobedient kids?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Parents are the instruments by which God gives the children life. They have the responsibility of raising those children for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That's because you don't appreciate how much involvement God has/had "behind the scenes". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

The Article states "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family". One would then assume only the descendents of Noah and his family would be able to pass on the story of the flood.

The flood legends in the folklore of people from around the world can only be referring to the same event if all these people are related no Noah and his family? According to [[Flood Geology]] the flood occured around 2350 B.C some 4357 years ago. When and how did Hawains and Australian Aboriginies, for example, become ''racially'' different to Noah and his family? I think the article should explain how various human poupulations descended from Noah and his family came to look so different to one another.

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

:That is something that should be explained, but not in this article, I think. This is about the historical records of the Flood, and just like Flood Geology is in a separate article, this aspect should be too, although I'm not sure at the moment which article it should be in. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps in the article [[Homo sapiens]]. I'm not too hot on science, you seem to know a lot about these things. Perhaps you could add the stuff to the appropriate article. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, Homo sapiens might be appropriate. Now to find the time, after all the other things on my to-do list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution and a Worldwide Flood: Not mutually exclusive? ==

So, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think that the idea of a worldwide flood would be invalid without accepting evolution in a way similar to how it is presented in schools and books and the internet today.

Here's the deal. Fish live in many different habitats, their survival dependent on several factors including water pH, temperature, and the most important to my idea, salinity. While there are some fish with astoundingly large salt tolerancies, there are others who cannot live except for in a very stable, specific environment, including two well known staples of many American's diets, the catfish and the tuna. These fish would die if they were in an environment with a salinity that was very much different than they are used to, so my point is this. During a worldwide flood, water salinity would be decreased from what it normally is in various parts of the oceans, and it would be increased from that of any freshwater environment. Assuming that what I just said is true, and that evolution is false, we should not have freshwater fish, saltwater fish with low tolerncy for the salinity of their environment being changed.

This clearly isn't true, though, as none of the fish from this particular site (http://fins.actwin.com/species/index.php?t=3&f=1) would exist if not for evolutionary mechanics, presuming, that is, that you should find the idea of a worldwide flood indisputable. Basically, if you believe in the worldwide flood, evolution would kind of go hand in hand.
--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the problem is that what you call "evolution" is not what creationists object to. That is, creationists disagree with claims that there are mechanisms to add new genetic information to creatures, which is required for [[types of evolution|goo-to-you evolution]]. Some adaptations that you call "evolution" are not such mechanisms. With that brief explanation in mind, have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

When do we get to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 15:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Not before you explain how that is relevant to this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:18, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't the flood caused by the melting of the polar icecap, similar to what is happening now? Soon we'll all be under water.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:No. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==Ubiquity of the flood story==
"Cultures around the world record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories." Really? I'd like to see some sources on that. Normally I'd just add a cite on the article, but that's sure to be reverted. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: It would have been reverted in this case, because that is an introductory and general statement. The support for it is provided, with references, in the body of the article. The article does not say that the stories are "ubiquitous". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general? ==

I got to this article when I put in the word "flood", and expected an article about floods in general. Why is it that we don't have an article like that?

This is exactly the kind of thing that liberals make fun of us for. We claim to be a viable alternative to wikipedia, yet we are missing articles on so many different things.

Who here is in favor of making an article on floods in general?

We are an educational website, after all.

{{unsigned|JackSmith}}
:Good point. I'll do that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: Simple: We're only about 18 months old, <s>and nobody's written one yet</s>. Thanks Tom. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Actually one was done, so I don't know the answer. Anyway, thanks to Tom we have one again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Acceptance section==

It would be grammatically correct to change the word "true" to "truth". However, the article is locked and I cannot do this. --[[User:Trevor|Trevor]]
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== A blocked user questions habitat ==

Blocked [[User:Georgecross]] added this to the end of the "Criticisms" section on the main page. As this in itself wasn't the reason for his block, nor was it inappropriate content, but it didn't fit into the article as it stood, I decided it'd be better to add it here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 09:45, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Noah would have had to have sailed around the world to drop off animals in the correct locations, such as Polar bears in the South Pole Penguins in the north pole, however the habbitats that these animals live in would probably have been destroyed. Noah also had to stop the starving caniverous creatures from eating all the other animals, presumably by feeding them road potatoes. However the real problems for Noah would have started when he finally go to home then he would of had to have planted crops and repatriate the earth.

== Opening Statement ==
"Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood"

This is a bit misleading to say the least. The evidence of cuneiforms were found around this time and five thousand years before that a vast amount of evidence of a 'token currency' society existed around the cradle of civilization. See this for a basic summary: http://heritage-key.com/world/cuneiform-birth-writing

Historical artefacts from before 3000 BC do exist and are genuine. The phrase should be reworded as such to acknowledge their validity. This is an archaeological criticism.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 09:47, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:Do you know what virtually means? If you're interested in learning more about the history of writing, look at [[History of Writing|the page I wrote on it]]. The fact that you cite a "token currency" dating to five thousand years before 3000 BC, ie, 8000 BC, speaks volumes about your worldview. Take a look at some of our ancient history articles with an open mind. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:50, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:In addition to Jacob's point, there is no independent verification of any writings or civilizations before about 3000 B.C. Your cite is to musings by an "English Literature graduate, who currently works as a writer and journalist in London. He enjoys ancient history, theatre and sport." British journalists are typically very [[liberal]], which can obviously interfere with their objectivity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:57, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:The section on proto-script lacks exact dates which we do know of. I will not get into here. I'm just suggesting the phrase could be better worded. Also mentioning trees is another problem as Prometheus, a famous tree in Nevada, has been estimated at 5,000 years old. Virtually is a bit too strong a word. Virtually is suggesting 'almost entirely'. It should be more along the lines of 'limited' or 'moderate' when interpreting the amount of data available.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:08, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Great Flood

2010-02-15T14:47:08Z

Composer: Opening Statement

Talk:Great Flood

2010-02-15T14:46:44Z

Composer: Opening Statement

Recycling

2010-02-15T14:21:50Z

Composer:

[[Image:SteelforRecycling.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Crushed steel, ready to be recycled]]
'''Recycling''' is the act of re-processing old [[bottle]]s, [[can]]s, [[paper]]s, [[plastic]]s, [[electronics]], or other materials instead simply throwing them away. (Other forms of such environmental responsibility are reusing and reducing, as shown in the common slogan "reduce, reuse, recycle.") Most western countries have recycling programs sponsored by local councils. Recycling is picked up from the curb, like standard [[garbage]] pick-up, and taken to a [[recycling plant]] where it is sorted (plastic, paper etc) and smelted down to be remade. It is estimated that in the [[United States]] there are 8550 curbside recycling programs.<ref>http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/United_States_Recycling_Statistics</ref> In certain countries in [[Europe]], such as [[Germany]], there are heavy fines for people who fail to recycle regularly. [[San Francisco]] also mandates extensive recycling on its residents (see [[San Francisco values]]).

Critics dispute the net economic and environmental benefits of recycling over its costs, and suggest that proponents of recycling often make matters worse and suffer from confirmation bias. Specifically, critics argue that the costs and energy used in collection and transportation detract from (and outweigh) the costs and energy saved in the production process; also that the jobs produced by the recycling industry can be a poor trade for the jobs lost in logging, mining, and other industries associated with virgin production; and that materials such as paper pulp can only be recycled a few times before material degradation prevents further recycling. Proponents of recycling dispute each of these claims, and the validity of arguments from both sides has led to enduring controversy.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Environmental Stewardship]]

Alec Baldwin

2010-02-15T14:19:59Z

Composer: New Category

[[Image:Alec-Baldwin thumb.jpg|right|frame]]
'''Alexander Rae Baldwin III ''' (born 1958) is an [[Emmy Award]] winning [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] actor. The eldest of the Baldwin brothers, Alec Baldwin has starred in many movies and television shows such as ''[[30 Rock]]'', and has hosted ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' 14 times.

Baldwin was formerly married to actress [[Kim Basinger]]. The ensuing divorce proceedings and custody battle have been a source of fodder for reporters, who have published assorted claims by Basinger and Baldwin. As of May 4, 2007 a court will be considering whether Baldwin should be allowed continued visitation with his daughter in light of an expletive-strewn, threatening phone message he left to his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland.<ref>http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_audio/0419_baldwin.mp3</ref>

On the recording, Baldwin can be heard berating his young daughter, "You are a rude, thoughtless little pig." "You don't have the brains or the decency as a human being," he says, apparently upset that she did not answer her phone for a planned call. He further says, "I don't give a damn that you're 12 years old, or 11 years old, or that you're a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what you do as far as I'm concerned."<ref>http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070420/D8OK22H82.html</ref>

According to TMZ.com, a family law judge was so alarmed after hearing the tape, she has temporarily barred Baldwin from having any contact with his child.

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter/ TMZ.com article on the troubled actor/activist]
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000285/ Alec Baldwin] at the Internet Movie Database
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/alec-baldwin/ What Liberals Say - Alec Baldwin], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category: Actors]]
[[Category:American Roman Catholics]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Baldwin, Alec}}

Michael Moore

2010-02-15T14:18:12Z

Composer: New Category

[[Image:Michael-Moore.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Michael Moore]]
'''Michael Moore''' (born April 23, 1954) is a [[liberal|left wing]], admitted [[socialist]] filmmaker and [[conspiracy theorist]]. Moore is critical of the U.S. government, as can be seen in his reply to the question "You do not seem to like the U.S., do you?"
{{cquote|I like America to some extent. … Americans are simple and clear. They are charming people. You will understand how good an individual American is. What I am not satisfied with America is that the nation cannot control the government and economy. Only a handful of people have the power to control the country. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32174</ref>}}

Moore's films and television programs represent some of the most egregious examples of deceitful [[liberal]] [[propaganda]] in contemporary American political discourse.

==Manufacturing dissent==
He is a hero in [[liberal]] Hollywood and to booksellers who tend to agree with his politics. Moore's films and commentaries are often based on themes of alleged "capitalist" greed. Though a multi-millionaire, Moore frequently appears on television and in photos dressed like blue-collar workers with whom he attempts to identify.

Moore produced a movie portraying President [[George W. Bush]] as part of a massive conspiracy, named ''Fahrenheit 9/11''. The contents of the film were systematically shown to be untrue, maliciously edited, and bordering on treasonous by an independent study <ref>http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf</ref>.

Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies.

Moore's movie "Bowling for Columbine", which used the Columbine school massacre as a starting point, won the Acadamy Award for Best Documentary. Some of his other work includes the anti-corporate film ''Roger and Me'' and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American'' and ''Stupid White Men''.

Moore also directed the anti-war music video for "Boom!" by [[System of a Down]], which was released to coincide with the beginning of the [[Iraq war]].

His production company which produces feature documentary-style films is Michael Moore Films.<ref>http://www.michaelmoore.com/</ref>

Michael Moore was the subject of the 2004 documentaries ''Michael Moore Hates America''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/</ref>, ''Fahrenhype 9/11''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/</ref> and the 2007 documentary ''Manufacturing Dissent''.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/</ref> He was also the subject of books including ''Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man'' by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174624100&sr=1-1</ref> and ''Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left'' by Jesse Larner.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Us-Our-Spins-Michael/dp/047179306X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174623950&sr=8-1</ref>
[[Image:Moore html.jpg|right|thumb|Michael Moore, ranting|200px]]

== Sicko ==
In his comedy documentary, ''[[Sicko]]'', Michael Moore argued for the revamping of the American health care system, and supported that of [[Canada]], [[United Kingdom|Britain]], [[Cuba]], and [[France]]. Sicko was released in late June 2007. In this documentary, Moore argues for a nationalized health care system, citing the supposed positive effects from the health care systems of the aforementioned countries, and the supposed negative effects stemming from the health care system of the United States. <ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/</ref><ref>http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/about/synopsis/</ref> Sicko received much criticism for dishonestly ignoring the problems with, in particular, Britain's National Health Service. <ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article2753620.ece</ref>

==Criticisms of Sicko==

Kurt Loder of [[MTV|MTV news]] alleged:

<blockquote>"Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed. 

Unfortunately, Moore is also suspected of being selective with the truth, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000* people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one. 

As a proud Socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. <ref>http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml</ref>
</blockquote>

==Earnings==
Michael Moore's films have grossed worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00. A breakdown for just the [[United States of America]] is below.

{| style="background:white" border="1" class="wikitable"
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center"|Michael Moore's Gross US box office film earnings<ref>[http://www.the-numbers.com/people/directors/MIMOO.php The Numbers]</ref><ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business</ref>
|-
! Film
! U.S. Gross $
|-
| Roger & Me
|style="text-align:right"| $6,706,368
|-
| Canadian Bacon
|style="text-align:right"| $178,104
|-
| The Big One
|style="text-align:right"| $720,074
|-
| Bowling for Columbine
|style="text-align:right"| $21,576,018
|-
| Fahrenheit 9/11
|style="text-align:right"| $119,114,517
|-
| Sicko
|style="text-align:right"| $24,540,079
|-
| '''TOTAL'''
|style="text-align:right"| '''$172,835,160'''
|}

==Treasury investigation==
According to ''Reuters'' in June 2007, Moore is reported to have hidden assets in Canada in reaction to an official investigation. Moore was operating offshore in Cuba allegedly as a "journalistic endeavor." The United States Treasury Department does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1119539820070613 Moore fears film seizure after Cuba trip], Michelle Nichols, ''Reuters'', June 12, 2007. </ref>

==Criticism==
[[Image:Obamabow2.JPG|thumb|left|President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia; Moore was highly critical of President George W. Bush's relationship with the Saudi ruling family.]]
'''[[Christopher Hitchens]]''' said of Fahrenheit 9/11, and Moore's work:
{{Cquote|To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery." <ref>[http://slate.com/id/2102723/ The lies of Michael Moore]. By Christopher Hitchens, //Slate'', June 21, 2004.</ref><ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/p_ibbetson/06092007.htm Michael Moore: A Criminal Profile], Paul A. Ibbetson, ''New Media Journal, June 9, 2007,</ref>}}

In 2004, Moore warned that if [[George W. Bush|Bush]] was re-elected as President: "...he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it - Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich."<ref>Moore, Michael [http://www.clark04.com/moore/ ''I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye Mr. Bush''] 14 January 2004; Clark for President site. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref> Over four years later, the draft had not been reintroduced.

Moore says that corporations are "terrorists" and has said "I don't own a single share of stock" but IRS records showed he owned at least several hundreds of thousand dollars in stocks in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly, and even Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in ''Fahrenheit 9/11''.

Moore uses a private jet on his book tours and stays at the Ritz Carlton hotel when in [[London]], but conducts press interviews in a cheap hotel nearby to give reporters the impression he is staying there instead. Moore calls himself "an Average Joe from Flint, MI" and says, "Once you’re working class, you’re always working class". The reality is that hypocrite Moore lives a luxury-class lifestyle out of reach of most Flint residents.

Moore says that Americans who live in white neighborhoods are racist, but lives in a town (Central Lake, Michigan) which according to the 2000 Census, had a black population of zero.

Speaking of the Afghanistan war, Moore wants to end the war and give victory to the Taliban. In a letter addressed to [[Obama]], Moore writes, "It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57811 A Liberal Pleads With Obama to End the Afghanistan War, CNSNews, December 1, 2009]</ref>

==Wikipedia controversy==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]]]]
Michael Moore's official website [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] put an image and name of a [[Wikipedia]] editor on its main page with links to edit both Wikipedia's article on ''[[Sicko]]'' and the Wikipedia editor's user page. Wikipedia policy explicitly states,
:"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages '''under any circumstances'''."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites]
Wikipedia Dispute Resolution policy stated aim is to "primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Scope] and not content disputes. Policy further states,
:"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user...Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site]
Wikipedia Conflict of interest policy states, "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F] and "Campaigning. Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world... may have a conflict of interest."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#Examples]

Protection of Wikipedia editors from activities targeting editors for harassment also states,"Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Combatting_harassment], and finally, "It is unacceptable to harass another user."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Harrassment]

Unequivocally, Michael Moore's official website, michaelmoore.com, engaged in egregious violations of multiple Wikipedia policies warranting blocking of users from Michael Moore's website, and editors linking to it. Further, official Wikipedia policy states all links to Michael Moore’s website from Wikipedia must be removed.

In discussion of the case, harassment and intimidation of a Wikipedia editor was excused, whose expertise on the subject of healthcare was characterized as "an attorney, who is a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] think tank." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html] The interpersonal nature of the attack was ignored by Wikipedia's rule making body, in favor of,
:"a bunch of considerations. One is that ''Sicko'', finally, brings to public attention information which has not been generally presented by American media. This is right up our alley... we and whoever runs Moore's website look ridiculous. ..."

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] Wikipedia Arbitration Chairman stated,
:"Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support."

When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, the Chairman said,
:"If a powerful [[leftwing]] celebrity attacks a [[rightwing]] Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site."

==See also==
*[[Schlockumentary]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Michael Moore|Articles about '''Michael Moore''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

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

==External links==
*[http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/07/moore_attacks_cnn_network_spew.html Moore attacks CNN network, spews anti-South Asian sentiments], ''RaceWire.org'', July 10, 2007.
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html WikiEN-l Harassment sites], Sun Oct 14 19:27:21 UTC 2007.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[category:propagandists]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:American Roman Catholics]]
{{liberalism}}