Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Dfairlyxed13

2007-07-14T14:23:24Z

Dfairlyxed13: New page: -o.25,1.23: compass thingy active member of the green lantern corps. Old Skool Nickelodeon was way cooler I found Jesus Linux pwns Windows Mmmm...d'oh...nuts 31337 pwn* Punk, metal ...

-o.25,1.23: compass thingy

active member of the green lantern corps.

Old Skool Nickelodeon was way cooler

I found Jesus

Linux pwns Windows

Mmmm...d'oh...nuts

31337 pwn*

Punk, metal and classic rock in that order

strait from '''TEXAS''' yall

Myspace is the destroyer of galaxies and will one day cause a schizm in the fabric of the multiverse wich will lead to the bloodshed of many noble computers.

Golden Age pwns modern age

Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?

2007-06-25T13:15:26Z

Dfairlyxed13:

==Yes==
Is one civilization responsible for the well being of another civilization?
Is an influx of uneducated people into your country beneficial to your country?

In my humble opinion, in terms of whats best for the country, I would say no to both questions.
: Seekcommon has made a number of interesting points, but he/she is simply wrong. The FBI arrested several men who were plotting to kill american soldiers, many were illegal and in the US for several years. It is imperative that the FEDS go all out to round up all illegals and deport them to whereever they came from. What the heck, they have broken the law anyway and contribute nothing to this society of law abiding and God fearing citizens. [[User:dninsafbicia]]

==No==
Legal immigration control is the answer to illegal immigration. That way people will know what is legal and illegal. Legal=civility while illegal=jail time.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. It is time that the White man who killed the original inhabitants of the country we call the US of A should leave. Christopher Columbus thought he had reached India when he did not and he allowed for the killings that followed. More recently, so many Irish came to the US, many illegally, we should demand proof that they are here legally. Every one who was not born of parents who were not here on this land originally ought to be asked to demand proof that they belong here and are not here illegally. Great idea. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Well, that is what is called racism. It has nothing to do with immigrating from one sovereign country to another in a legal means by todays standards of civilization. But let us go farther back in time when succesive waves of people "immigrated" to the Americas. Each one killing their way across the continents until they became the dominant culture. If you can go back far enough to find the first person to inhabit the Americas then it won't mean nothing since they probably no longer exist. But their ancestors weren't originally born here either if you go back far enough. So how about putting a clamp on the racism?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I see "racism" in the current vitriol being thrown at "illegal" immigration, yes, "illegal". The fact is that, "illegal" immigration happens because we have a flawed/inhumane "legal" immigration policy. Today's immigrants (legal and illegal) are very different from the ones that came in the early 20th century/late 19th century. The fact is that without the illegals, much of our economy will crawl. Using the pretext of "illegal" immigration, demagogues like Lou Dobbs of CNN unload on "legal" immigration - issues of H-1 visas for technical people and such - claiming that "such immigrants" take jobs away from "natives". Rubbish, says that most radical of all newspapers, The Wall Street Journal. [[User:Seekcommon] PS - My comments about the white man and such were, obviously meant to make a point that we are ALL immigrants and many came illegally. Inspite of all this, I have always believed that of ALL countries in the world, the US of A remains the most humane and welcoming of ALL foreigners, immigrants - Let's keep it that way, is what I hope we do. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::No, illegal immigrants aren't "helping" the economy. The exploitation of illegal immigrants is the slave mentality. Just as on the cotton plantations of the 19th century, today we have the idea of businesses exploiting illegal immigrants for their own profit. You are right about the existance of flawed policy. That we have sanctuary cities and towns that protect criminal business practices who exploit cheap labor. All about the money, right? They don't lose their business or go to jail even if their under paid workers are rounded up and deported. There are always plenty of American citizens in line to replace them. But if you were given the choice of paying someone five bucks an hour or fifteen bucks then the decision is simple. I've also noticed that only those that don't see a problem with the illegal exploitation of illegal aliens are always screaming about racism. The flawed/inhumane legal immigration policy of the United States allows the "legal" immigration of more people then any other country on the planet. Perhaps the real answer to illegal immigration would be throwing American Citizens in jail for the inhumane monetary exploitation of their fellow human beings. Until that happens, people will immigrate illegally to work as cheap labor.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The fundamental reason our country, the US of A is a magnet for the rest of the world is the simple fact that each person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By any measure, we have benefited enormously by both legal AND illegal immigration, I know you disagree. Fine. The workers who are "exploited" are still better off than they would have been in their own country (yes, that includes legal AND illegal immigrants). In fact what is happening is that because the world is slowly trying to catch up to the US and as more opportunities are made available to people in those countries, there is less and less interest and pressure for many to emigrate from their native lands and immigrate to the US - these trends are evident in Higher Education, for sure. Unlike other countries, we are dynamic - people who are laid off, do find other ways to survive/thrive. Yes, many are hurt irreversibly and never recover. No system is perfect, what we have in the US comes close. Adam Smith explained it best - supply and demand. It is OUR demand for goods/services and OUR refusal to pay any more than what we WANT to pay that results in producers trying to find ways to reduce their costs and OUR costs. Yes, the producers DO MAKE money by using cheap labor, but millions of people do have jobs and do very well. No matter what I say or write (or what the Wall Street Journal writes), you will hold steadfast to your view that "illegal" immigration hurts us all and does not help the economy. I disagree. You can make a difference. Stop shopping at Walmart, do not buy a car or a computer or a shirt or a pant that is NOT made in the US A and before you buy anything, ask if the people who made them were paid a "decent wage" and were "not exploited" or whatever. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Apparently illegal border crossings have slowed by more than 10% this year according to a report cited by the Wall Street Journal, today May 2, 2007.
But instead of rigorous enforcement as many would have us believe, this reflects supply and demand, again according to the Wall Street Journal. The slump in the housing market is cited as the main reason as to why fewer illegals are crossing the border and it indicates, again as the Wall Street Journal reports, that immigrants come here to work and not idle and collect welfare. I should add they work and improve OUR standard of living while accepting jobs that go abegging. Many on our unemployed rolls are unwilling to take these jobs or perhaps do not even have those skills necessary or simply refuse because they can and sit and complain about illegal immigration or something else. I'd recommend that they complain to the Wall Street Journal and tell them that the Journal is being unpatriotic and UnAmerican. [[User:Seekcommon]]

: I seem to have some difficulty in providing a link to any interested reader. The article is at online.wsj.com/article/SB117807233027389126.html

I suppose I see immoral behavior anywhere when it comes to immigrants and their current status in the US (particularly Mexican, Chinese, Korean or other non-caucasian, non-white). Even for a litigious society like the US, this surely takes first prize - the story of a Judge that sues a dry cleaner for 65 million dollars - taking it out on immigrants who have done good I suppose.
[www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html Here is the article by Marc Fisher] I am curious as to what the position (if any) of the conservatives on this board about whether of not the law suit has any merit. And why there has been no significant outcry - Could it be because the affected party is not white or black? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when working people like the Cheungs are being victimized by the system? Or does it have to do something about the race and color of the affected parties and the one that is doing the suing? No, I do not know if the Most Eminent Judge Pearson is black or white - BUT I can guess He is black since nary a word from Jackson or Sharpton. Replace black with "African American" if it offends and I am aware that certain words are to be used only by certain people at certain times under certain conditions after getting permission from Jackson and Sharpton. [[User:Seekcommon]]
: The Most Honorable Judge Pearson is an African American, there was a video. Now it makes perfect sense as to why Jackson and Sharpton are not protecting the cleaners against this blatant racist, anti-immigrant fervor of an officer of the Court in these United States of America - after all, he is one of them and so cannot be bad. Shame on the establishment for allowing such obvious attempts at persecuting hard working immigrants. I can only imagine the treatment meted out to the poor illegals that cross the border to find work and take jobs that others refuse to take [[User:Seekcommon]]

==British point of view==
So far this debate has been US-centred, but we have immigration problems of a different kind in the [[United Kingdom]]. Let me say that I believe, in principle, in the value of immigrants to a society, both economically and socially. But our problem is that our country's immigration policies are inadequately enforced by an incompetent bureaucracy. At present, people may be living in the UK and waiting for up to 5 years before the [[Home Office]] processes their application for indefinite leave to remain, or for asylum status. They're in a sort of limbo - they don't have the proper documentation, so they find it hard to get a job, so they can't contribute to society. This isn't the immigrants' fault - it's the incompetence of our [[Labour Party|Labour]] government, who have simply failed in their duty to provide a system that works. Not to mention, we're now getting mass immigration from Eastern Europe due to those countries joining the [[European Union]]. This isn't a bad thing in itself, but we've had a few cases of people with criminal records entering the UK - and our immigration services don't even bother to check their background before letting them in. Once again, the Labour government failed to plan for the future. What a dismal record of failure. [[User:Palace1|Palace1]] 13:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Student POV==
I don't see why we have to reform American laws concerning immigrantion. Indeed our side of the fence has already solved the problem way back when. The reformation has to occur on the other side of the tortilla wall. If los presidentes of the latin nations would reform their own laws conserning work where people don't earn 10 bucks a day, then we wouldn't have a problem. Secondly, the people of those nations need a spine transplant. They need to learn that governments break with pressure. I hate tools who come into my country demanding that we change our laws. They need to go back and reform their country that they love oh so much. [[User:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed]] June 25 2007

Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?

2007-06-03T01:12:43Z

Dfairlyxed13:

I would say either Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist. I belong to a non-denominational church and Reformed Baptist is everything I believe. The only thing I disagree with about Presbyterians is infant baptism. I could never baptize my child for any reasons.

I tend to be distrustful about denominations in general, but I tend to go with the Southern Baptists or the Methodists. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Is that what ''you'' believe? Or would say, Ethiopian Orthodox[http://ethiopianorthodox.org/english/indexenglish.htm][http://sellassie.ourfamily.com/culture/church.html] be closer to what was taught in old times? Alternatively, are you suggesting that the central teachings of Christianity have changed through time? I am fairly sure it is trivial to show that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has not changed its teachings for at least a few hundred (if not a thousand or more) years - long before North America was a scribble on a map. And thus I ask, how can the Baptist church be closer to the central teachings of Christianity? And even more to the point - what are those central teachings? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'll go for a long shot with Mormons.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I foresee a hornet's nest here, especially seeing as one of our best editors is a Mormon and has already come under fire for that on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Another reason this whole page should be AFD'd. What a ridiculous question, prima facie.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The answer to this question: Whatever denomination the answerer belongs to, probably. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Not for me...i picked the one I just thought sounded cool. The one you pick is most closely related to the one your parents picked.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, BTW, which one is the Mormon??? JK. I don't think anyone should be forced to reveal their personal beliefs to the world at large unless they wish to.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Crocoite is openly Mormon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

NP. Some of my best friends....--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The whole question strikes me as "Richard-ish"[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hijole (ee ho lay), seems like the Catholics are the furthest while the original Protestants were the closest. Either way, i think God is the best judge of that one. [[User: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

:I suppose this might be ''true'' if Christianity became static upon the Ascension (or maybe upon the death of the last original Apostle). However, Christianity is not static, it changes (I wouldn't want to use the term ''evolves'' on Conservapedia...). To whom did Christ say 'You are the Rock upon whom I found my Church'? Wasn't it Peter, the first Bishop of Rome (and therefore the first Pope). And didn't Christ say to Peter and the Apostles 'Let what you bind be bound, and what you loose be loosed'? And didn't Peter and the other Apostles, given this and other privileges, create a hierarchical Church and establish the Apostalic Succession? And who chose the books of the Bible that Protestants take as the only guiding light in their religion? Why don't Protestants add other books into the Bible that the much-maligned Catholic Church deemed not to be Sacred Scripture? Was there not a single other document that Protestants could be reconciled with but not Catholics, perhaps regarding differing opinions on the Trinity. And what if Thomas had written a very moving, beautiful letter through Divine Inspiration outlining the Church's doctrine on the Divine Mother? Would you accept that? If the Church's Catechism directly contradicted the Scriptures, there might be issues. However, the Catechism and the Bible are extraordinarily well reconciled--nearly two thousand years of scholastic endeavor have assured that. Indeed, Catholicism is probably the most self-consistent Christian religion. Nevertheless, the original question asks about most true to the 'central teachings' of Christianity. Well, if you take those teachings to be Christ's or Peter's, then Catholicism probably stands near the top. If you take Paul to be the spokeman for 'central teachings' then some other denominations become more competitive. However, I don't think that many of Christ's teachings would be well received on a Conservapedia.

::The thing is that Catholic mass has become a empty ritual. Christ didn't ask for religion, he asked for a intimate relationship. How are you supposed to have a relationship with the Christ when you go around praying to humans. God is the only one anyone should pray too. Not a human who died. Jesus died and came back and is alive. That's the main reason why the Catholics are not close at all. [[User:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]
==None==
If you are following people who require you to follow their teachings in order for your salvation, it's a good bet that you no longer adhere to the original disciples of the Son of God. Read the Bible and study it. It is spiritual manna. No human that places their teachings between you and the bible should be trusted before it. I only benefit from those that only teach the Bible without inserting their own liberal interpretations. Just about all that I know of have denominated their own words in addition to His word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Is it OK with you if they insert their own conservative interpretations? Reading the Bible is going to demand interpretations, some trivial, some of much more serious import. Even the selection of a specific version demands a selection of interpretations. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You should be able to go back to the original Hebrew text. Get a Concordance and get a good study Bible that hasn't been reinterpreted into something that's merely politically correct or denominational. Study history, language, anthropology, etc. Biblical truths don't change because of different translations. The only interpretation you should be looking for is the original one when it was written. Looking for the truth wasn't meant to be easy, was it?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For the NT, it would be the original Greek or Aramaic, and AFAIK, these are not available. There is a whole field of study devoted to trying to figure out what the original text said. Much is known, but much is still conjecture. A "good study Bible that hasn't been reinterpreted into something that's merely politically correct or denominational" is simply choosing one that matches your own preconceptions. In the end, any reading of the Bible is an interpretation, and the vast majority of people do not have the ability or the time to find the most original texts, learn a couple ancient languages, then create their own interpretation.

:::By definition, any translation changes from the original, so anyone's translation becomes an interpretation. The vast majority of people have little choice but to select a denomination that most closely matches their own preconceptions. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 10:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

When choosing to denominate yourself to someone elses you have accepted their interpretation. You accept their conjecture. You will be required to accept the extra traits they have added to original scripture. Be wary of following others interpretations. Seek the truth from the original writer. Reject the preconceptions of people that have prejudiced themselves with their own traditions. There is only one Christian Church. Do not let others divide you amongst each other. This is the divide to weaken tact used to keep Christians in easily controllable groups. Don't fall for that trap. You belong to the Son of God and not any man-made denomination.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2007-05-11T13:49:21Z

Dfairlyxed13:

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]
==Better==
Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-04-18T13:38:31Z

Dfairlyxed13: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure the fifty+ female soldiers who have died in Iraq and the thousands others who serve will be glad to hear how unsuited they are for combat. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
*Women should not be in combat or combat support, where there at risk of being captured or killed by the enemy. Male soldiers will, by nature, want to rescue them from danger, even at the cost of neglected strategically more important missions.
*We can try to train this protective masculine nature out of men, but it can only backfire. Israel and one European country tried using Women to fight, but it didn't work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::I used to work for the Isreali army, and I would not like to fight against those female soldiers? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:: We don't have that problem in Canada; we allow our women in front-line combat roles. It is very likely that the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces] simply has superior training. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Does anyone remember the phenomenon of the 9-11 mom, who was the Dodge Caravan driving soccer mom on September 10, but turned into a war monger after the events of the following day? She put the Pubs back in control of the Senate in 2002 after that Jeffords nonsense, and started signing up in droves to trade in her purple SUV for an olive-green HMMWV. Woe to the intruder who discounts the she-bear and molests her cubs. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Yes''': One of the objections is that women don't have the upper body strength to lug an overloaded pack into combat. Well, this is the 21st Century, and no one should be lugging the kinds of packs they've made them lug around since World War One. Someone's got to lay that misguided tradition to rest. We've got Stryker brigades and uparmored humvees, you live in your vehicle and get out now and then to lay some hurt on the enemy. And you get women ready for that part by making the same physical test requirements for both genders. Same kind of pushups, same time on the 2.5 miles. Any woman who can't do what a man does, physically, washes out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not. Every person has the right to do what he/she feels. If a women wants to join the military beside the men, they should.

== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:"women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat" Well, duh. Rape is a personal assault; it's one-on-one, or many-on-one, it singles the victim out. Combat, for all its horrors, is usually fairly impersonal and doesn't single out individuals (I'm leaving out snipers etc., who do go looking for individual targets, but even then it's because their targets are enemy combatants, not as an exercise in power over another person). As for what kind of unit a woman could end up in, how about we expect the members of the unit, regardless of their sex, to act like adult human beings and respect the other personnel of their unit as fellow members of the profession of arms? And further, how about we expect and require the chain of command to take prompt action against those who view women in uniform as a source of free sex or second-class citizen to be intimidated, instead of what all too often happens — the grin, the chuckle, the snide remarks in the mess, the speculation about her sexual preferences, proclivities and prowess; the complaint (if one is lodged) being quietly round-filed? Servicewomen don't want and shouldn't have to be 'looked after', other than the way in which any member of a unit watches out for other members. They do want, and deserve, to be treated with the same respect for their rank, experience and person as servicemen. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, how much is 37% of 1/3? Around 12% I reckon. But that's only of those seeking VA help - not a representative group. I hate this kind of cherry-picking of statistics.

On the other hand, fighting men are a surly lot, and I would not be surprised if military rape rates were significantly higher than civilian rates.

A more professionl article (not a sensationalist news story) cited different statistics:
*researchers found that 79 percent of participants reported experiences of sexual harassment during their military service; 30 percent of the women reported an attempted or completed rape. [http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2003/march/031103military-rape.html Iowa University]

The odd thing is that I think it's the same study! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-04-18T13:31:15Z

Dfairlyxed13:

I noticed on the main page the news item about adult stem cells and the byline indicating how (in the opinion of the author(s)) the "abortion" industry ''"continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States"'' and it continues to say how ''"In the case of a recently successful adult stem cell project for diabetics, "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach."'' Nonsense. I am not a researcher in that area, but know enough to understand that scientists go where the data leads them. If adult stem cells will work like other stem cells, people will try them and such efforts continue. It is utter nonsense to say that doctors in the US are not interested in that approach - perhaps they know a few things the author(s) do not know.

I'll wait to see how long this topic survives before I spend any time writing about this. The clock is, again, ticking. [[User:Seekcommon]]

: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?
:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-04-18T13:30:22Z

Dfairlyxed13:

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-04-18T13:22:08Z

Dfairlyxed13:

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-04-15T01:16:41Z

Dfairlyxed13:

God, as understood and accepted, is everywhere, knows everything, is all powerful, can do anything, to anyone, at anytime. So, why should God have to instil fear in humans? If God can do anything, to anyone, at anytime, why instill fear? There is nothing anyone can do about it anyway, according to that belief system. [[USer:Seekcommon]]

== Be Not Afraid ==

1 John 4:18 '''There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'''

== Be Very Afraid ==
Certainly we should love God for all the love he shows (and has shown) us. But you have to remember that God does set a standard of living that we should try to live up to. God choose to do many things to show his justice, he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden because they choose to sin. Because God is justice we should fear him because many times we choose sin which is unjust.

Double Edge

* What about all the rules to live by as stated in the Old Testament? If those rules are followed today, I wonder if anyone will be alive - since death seems to be the punishment for so many things, including, working on the sabbath. I wonder how long this post/response will last before it is moved/deleted. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Don't you think that if everyone were being killed for their sins, the amount of sins would decrease? Death is a powerful crime deterrent.

P.S. I don't know why you fear that your posts will be deleted. Posts will only be deleted if they are obscene. Your questions are welcomed, at least by me. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
* I am glad to find some interest. There have been deletions that do not make sense, I wish I had saved some of the posts. It has been my experience that on the right AND the left, often when discussion/debates veer into uncomfortable territory, wham, the hammer comes down. [[User:Seekcommon]]

* How can an infinite span of time suffering the torment of fire be justice for a mere 70 or 80 years on Earth spent under confusing circumstances with conflicting "gospels" to choose from? [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
** Good question. Seems unreasonable to me. Then again, it's the issue of instilling FEAR, perhaps there is nothing to fear from the Almighty Himself but from the mortals that helped write the books/scriptures and changed them over the years. [[User:Seekcommon]] (Wonder what the life of these words will be? A day? Two perhaps?

The word fear applys to different emotions. Firstly, we should fear the Lord in the sense of the word meaning to have reverential awe (after all he created the universe). Secondly, as his children, we have no reason to fear him (using the common definition of terror and fright) unless we pursue that is perverse and sinful. It's good to fear the Lord, not to be afraid of the Him (unless you're sinful.)[[user:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

Debate:What is the Sabbath day?

2007-04-15T01:10:22Z

Dfairlyxed13:

{{debate}}

This is a topic that interests me. I identify as a Seventh-Day Adventist, although I only hold loosely to some of the teachings of the church. I personally believe the Sabbath day to be Saturday, the 7th day of the week in the traditional calendar, and the day of the Jewish Sabbath. I was a bit surprised to find that Conservapedia's article on the [[Sabbath]] asserted that the "date given by Moses has been lost". (I'd correct that, but I'm a bit wary about introducing my own biases, which may not be quite what the project wants.) In either case, I figured this was a good topic for debate. What day is the Sabbath day, or does it even matter in the life of the Christian? --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Genesis 2:2 "By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." In the biblical sense, Sabbath has much more meaning than just a day of the week. There were also 7 year sabbaths and 50 year sabbaths. I'm no expert at this, but I believe these were also referred to as the Year of Jubilee. Christians meet on Sunday (first day of the week) because that is the day they believe that Christ rose from the grave. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sabbath day is from Friday at sundown until Saturday at sundown, local time. The Jews are quite meticulous about ensuring their law is transmitted from one generation to the next without error, and one law commands the sabbath to be remembered. As far as Christians are concerned, Paul said, (Col.2:16) "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The Sabbath Day depends on what calander you're using--solar or lunar. Our comprehension of what day is which is thrown off by the fact that we have an extra day every 4 years to keep the calender sensical, which might also affect the Sabbath. It seems to be more important to observe rest and the power of God every seven days than to quibble about which of the seven it is. I seriously doubt God is going to scold you for not being a historical mathmatician and damning you for observing on the wrong day.

Really the Sabbath Day is any day that the Lord has deemed as Holy. The original holy day was the day that God rested. Jews believe this to be Saturday while Christians like to think of it as Sunday. It could be either it's more likely to be Saturday since the Christian calender has been altered so many times over the centries.[[User: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

Debate:What is the Sabbath day?

2007-04-15T01:09:45Z

Dfairlyxed13:

Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?

2007-04-15T01:06:51Z

Dfairlyxed13:

Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?

2007-04-15T01:06:14Z

Dfairlyxed13:

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-04-13T14:02:56Z

Dfairlyxed13: /* Let the Children Decide */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.
::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evololution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.-

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story.

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2007-04-13T13:53:24Z

Dfairlyxed13:

{{debate}}

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]

Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

2007-04-13T13:41:25Z

Dfairlyxed13:

== Yes ==
The bible is an interpreted work and poor interpretation lead to a poor set of ethics derived from that interpretation[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I've never read the bible completly, but alot of what I have read is soo violent and alot is degrading towards women. I am not saying the WHOLE bible is that way, but it seems that way. Yes, lets kill anyone who breaks the silliest of rules. It says thou shalt not kill for one of them comendment things, but then its like PUT THEM TO DEATH YAY FER KILLING PEOPLE. Overal, it's a poor display of morals and ethics and makes it sound okay to be mean and hurt other people and destroy stuff [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Its all open to interpretations. I mean, don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, obey your parents, it's not like those are a bad set of morals. Now, when the Bible contradicts itself is when you have to apply your own judgment. At least, thats how I view it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
The bible defines the standard of morality therefore one cannot apply a assesment of the bible ethics from a moral perspective.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to definitly dissagree with the above statements. We really have no way of knowing wether the nations the isrealites were forced to destroy were ever warned of there imminent doom. But i can say with reasonable certainty that they were. I say this because Nineva was an evil nation who did things detestable to the Lord. God sent Jonah to warn them that if they didn't, then they would die. We really have no way of knowing if God gave them warning. Secondly, if you mess up, you have to pay the price. Moses was God's most reverent prophet, but he never got to see the promised land. Moses disobeyed. God doesn't believe in killing innocent civilians for the sake of them being innocent. He believes in punishment. And who knows, maybe in the afterlife, how he'll judge his people. [[User:DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]] 8:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

2007-04-13T13:40:10Z

Dfairlyxed13:

Debate:Is President Bush good for America?

2007-04-12T14:22:42Z

Dfairlyxed13:

{{debate}}
Ever since his contested election of 2000, the rest of the world has gone stark mad with hatred toward anything President Bush is involved with. If you ever had your doubts about the man, think of this. In 2000, the Supreme Court awarded the Presidency to GWB on December 12th. That is also the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron Saint of the Americas. Coincidence? Give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Divinity could be playing a larger role in America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 04:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I do believe that God chose George W. Bush to be our president. In these days of pesticides and antibiotics, plagues of locusts and boils just don't have the impact they used to, so instead He sent us Bush. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Typical leftwing rant to trash Bush. No credit for 2000+ days without a terror strike on the homeland. I would say his strategy maybe working. Thats too much for a regressive liberal to accept or give thanks for.

:::Yes. Terrorists don't have to come all the way over here to kill Americans. We sent Americans to them. Perhaps there was a way to do it without having so many people die. (By the way, even on here you're going to have trouble associating "liberal" with "regressive." That's a hard sell.) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, a secure America. Isn't that what all Americans want? We do send a volunteer army of Americans to fight them abroad, there is no other way to do it. There is one other way, Clintonism. Whereby, we ignore the terrorists, or negotiate with them and when that doesn't work, they attack America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO

just what if......
We put GWB on the nuremburg war trials? Result? convicted of two counts of illegal invasion and other war crimes. having a criminal as a president is most definatly bad for a country[[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 19:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt having a criminal for a president is bad for a country, as we learned from 8 years of Clinton running around the Oval office. But let me see if I understand, are you attempting to compare President Bush with nazis who slaughtered millions of innocent people? Is this a joke? Are you saying that one of the counts of illegal invasion is Afghanistan or are you thinking of Waco? (That was Clinton) There are not many people who agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal. Question: what about all of the democrats who voted for the war in Iraq, what if they were tried? Would they be criminals too? With Bush in office there have been no successful terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Also, Bush was not "awarded the presidency" by the supreme court. He won the electoral race, hence his election. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No. If he hadn't gone into Iraq, he would have gone down is history as a great (or at least fine) president, but now he'll be remembered for dragging us into this unending Iraqi quagmire. His policies have slashed the social services budget (schools, health care, etc) and are bad for the environment. Sadly, he's been playing the 9/11 card as an excuse for everything. History, and history alone will show who's right. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Fortunately for everyone (except evil terrorists) Bush would rather do the right thing in Iraq than go down in history as "great". --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You're assuming there we BE any history. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52331
:And I'd argue Bush would still not have been remembered favorably--he's the only President I know of who's let an entire city get washed into the Gulf of Mexico. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: There you are again trashing Bush. Blame Bush for Katrina. Always pointing the finger. Maybe you should rethink your America is the bad guy scenerio.

No. He hasn't vetoed an entire spending bill. The national debt will destroy our economy once China wants to cash in. Bush is no conservative. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Someone disagrees with you, MD: [[Conservative]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yet so many Conservatives stampeded to vote for him both times, defended his every press-conference as though it'd come down off of Mt. Sinai, and denounced anyone who criticized him as VILE TERRORIST-LOVING '''TRAITORS'''.... And now they're denouncing him. Why the sudden change of heart? The Kool-Aide get too watered-down all of a sudden? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are you lumping me in with that group? How do you know my past opinions? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:It doesn't seem like he did, MD. Everything in his post was about "them" not "you." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:05, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, apologies.

I seriously don't know what I'm going to do in 2008. I haven't ruled out voting third party out of protest if I don't like the nominees. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll vote for the republican nominee as the lesser of two evils. I'd rather see pretty much ''any'' Republican in office than hillary or Barack. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: My ideal ticket that isn't likely to make it is McCain and Powell. I believe they actually have the knowledge and understanding of what it is to be in war and how to deal with a company that is in one rather than what is currently being done. Additionally, I believe that it is important to have at least one house of congress to be held by the other political party (whoever that is) - one needs the checks and balances. With the old congress it wasn't much more than a rubber stamp to the president which lead to no idea of compromise or what is best for those who voted them into office. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's a little of both man. The war is entirely justifiable, but the immigration standards are set way to high for the average immigrant to meet, even the very rare case of those who come well connected. I don't agree with everything he does but I think he did a very nice job. [[User:DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]

Talk:Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?

2007-04-12T14:08:48Z

Dfairlyxed13: New page: We baptise just as a way of telling the world that we were washed by Jesus. Thats all there is too it. If you're not baptised, all that means is that you didn't tell the people much; your ...

We baptise just as a way of telling the world that we were washed by Jesus. Thats all there is too it. If you're not baptised, all that means is that you didn't tell the people much; your gonna have to square that one away with God after Judgement Day.