Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T22:17:53Z

DunsScotus: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== AmesG's liberal unbelief ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJV) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The father of nominalism one good friar [[User:BenjaminW|BenjaminW]] 17:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I still think you're a parody. You can't possibly believe all the stuff you write.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Ames, don't foist the poverty of your imagination upon me. In God, all things are possible. All desires known. And no secrets are hid. That's the world in which we should live, not this fallen and destitute one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sue Me :) My name's anagram is "Jonah's Angoras". I'm a big old nerd who loves JESUS. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Flippin that was not very nice. Do not take the Lord's name in vain! [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]
So how do you explain the defense of Nessie as a modern dinosaur, and "Jesus spoke English," unless you're a parody? Again, funny stuff.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, if your desire is to be expunged from Conservapedia with the rest of your liberal agitators, that's fine, but don't trammel my work. To my knowledge, nobody has seen Nessie, and so it is formally possible she could be a dinosaur, that survived the Flood and the subsequent post-flood dislocations. Moreover, that's a good deal more possible given the Biblical Time Scale. I never said that Jesus spoke English, just that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired and truly doing His work. I'm not sure what the rest of your critiques mean, but you're obviously a hostile secularist, and largely without merit. I've observed your materialist attempts to champion evolution, and that's actively hostile to the will of the Lord. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Know one's seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. I bet he's real too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, I'm praying for you. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

lol [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Smug alert?[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 18:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I suspect more man-crushes on Duns are on the way. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is hard not to be very respectful of Duns. I don't know that man crushes are what he'd want, he is very against the homosexual agenda. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

: The word of how the Loch Ness Monster proves YEC is pretty important. Where would we be without it? Ah. Better educated.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Airdish and Me ==

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: But you did say that Jesus spoke English [[User_talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1#evidence_for_Agent_Provocateur_status]] [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That might have been poorly phrased. I believe I had been combating attempts to smear the KJV and Biblical Inerrancy in general, and my enumeration of Tmtoulouse's sins might have included an attempt to recognize this damage. However, I was not attempting to insinuate that Jesus spoke English, just that His translation (in the KJV), was Perfect and Inerrant. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I just started reading this stuff, and this guy seems really smart and really Christian. I guess I don't get what you guys are talking about completely, but this Duns guy seems like the real deal, a smart, good Christian. Maybe you shouldn't take up all his time here and let him spread the Word.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T22:13:00Z

DunsScotus:

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The father of nominalism one good friar [[User:BenjaminW|BenjaminW]] 17:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I still think you're a parody. You can't possibly believe all the stuff you write.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Ames, don't foist the poverty of your imagination upon me. In God, all things are possible. All desires known. And no secrets are hid. That's the world in which we should live, not this fallen and destitute one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sue Me :) My name's anagram is "Jonah's Angoras". I'm a big old nerd who loves JESUS. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Flippin that was not very nice. Do not take the Lord's name in vain! [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]
So how do you explain the defense of Nessie as a modern dinosaur, and "Jesus spoke English," unless you're a parody? Again, funny stuff.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, if your desire is to be expunged from Conservapedia with the rest of your liberal agitators, that's fine, but don't trammel my work. To my knowledge, nobody has seen Nessie, and so it is formally possible she could be a dinosaur, that survived the Flood and the subsequent post-flood dislocations. Moreover, that's a good deal more possible given the Biblical Time Scale. I never said that Jesus spoke English, just that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired and truly doing His work. I'm not sure what the rest of your critiques mean, but you're obviously a hostile secularist, and largely without merit. I've observed your materialist attempts to champion evolution, and that's actively hostile to the will of the Lord. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Know one's seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. I bet he's real too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, I'm praying for you. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

lol [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Smug alert?[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 18:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I suspect more man-crushes on Duns are on the way. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is hard not to be very respectful of Duns. I don't know that man crushes are what he'd want, he is very against the homosexual agenda. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

: But you did say that Jesus spoke English [[User_talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1#evidence_for_Agent_Provocateur_status]] [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That might have been poorly phrased. I believe I had been combating attempts to smear the KJV and Biblical Inerrancy in general, and my enumeration of Tmtoulouse's sins might have included an attempt to recognize this damage. However, I was not attempting to insinuate that Jesus spoke English, just that His translation (in the KJV), was Perfect and Inerrant. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T22:09:39Z

DunsScotus: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The father of nominalism one good friar [[User:BenjaminW|BenjaminW]] 17:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I still think you're a parody. You can't possibly believe all the stuff you write.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Ames, don't foist the poverty of your imagination upon me. In God, all things are possible. All desires known. And no secrets are hid. That's the world in which we should live, not this fallen and destitute one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sue Me :) My name's anagram is "Jonah's Angoras". I'm a big old nerd who loves JESUS. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Flippin that was not very nice. Do not take the Lord's name in vain! [User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]
So how do you explain the defense of Nessie as a modern dinosaur, and "Jesus spoke English," unless you're a parody? Again, funny stuff.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, if your desire is to be expunged from Conservapedia with the rest of your liberal agitators, that's fine, but don't trammel my work. To my knowledge, nobody has seen Nessie, and so it is formally possible she could be a dinosaur, that survived the Flood and the subsequent post-flood dislocations. Moreover, that's a good deal more possible given the Biblical Time Scale. I never said that Jesus spoke English, just that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired and truly doing His work. I'm not sure what the rest of your critiques mean, but you're obviously a hostile secularist, and largely without merit. I've observed your materialist attempts to champion evolution, and that's actively hostile to the will of the Lord. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Know one's seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. I bet he's real too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, I'm praying for you. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

lol [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Smug alert?[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 18:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I suspect more man-crushes on Duns are on the way. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is hard not to be very respectful of Duns. I don't know that man crushes are what he'd want, he is very against the homosexual agenda. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

: But you did say that Jesus spoke English [[User_talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1#evidence_for_Agent_Provocateur_status]] [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Noah's Ark

2007-03-28T22:07:48Z

DunsScotus: /* Objections */

"asswaged"?
:Yes. ''Asswaged'' is the proper Biblical spelling of the modern ''assuaged'', as it is in the original authorized English translation of the Holy Scriptures. Many modern "King James" Bibles actually alter the text, which can lead to confusion and errant exegesis (see [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james_glossary.htm "King James Glossary"] & [http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html "Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles"] for other spelling alterations).

:: Um, how can changing the spelling in a translation result in exegetic problems? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:57, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:King James-onlyism is not an official position of Conservapedia last I checked. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: Oh my, was that the logic behind the user's comment. *checks link*. Yep, wow. I don't know what to say to that. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: In fact, looking at that website in detail it argues for among other things the old-style British spelling of "Savior" as "Saviour" so per Conservapedias rules about British and American English if anything Conservapedia is anti-KJV onlyism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::By that reasoning, any edition claiming to be the King James Version that omits the Apocrypha is counterfeit. What do they have to say about the Apocrypha? Is it OK to omit them? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::(Sigh) Why do I even ask? Yes, they have [http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answer/gipp_answer_34.html a pat answer]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:::: Well at least they are aware that the apocrpha was in the original KJV. Many KJVist don't even know that. I can spot at least 4 factual errors in that piece though (ignoring things that aren't factual errors per se but just very odd language choice like the "Jewish Church"). What fun. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Conservapedia is obviously '''not''' King-James-only, since the article on the [[Ark of the Covenant]] says it was made of "acacia" wood. :-) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Dates ==

Excuse me but where the heck are the Roman calendar dates coming from? There is no way that that was the calendrical system in use. Most likely the system refferred to is a lunar calendar or lunar-solar calendar like that that Jews currently use. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:59, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Post-Diluvian Content ==

I am unsure that the explanation of the dispersal of animals from after they exited the Ark is within the scope of this article as it isn't really ''about'' the Ark itself. I think instead a separate article on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas should be created and linked to from here. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 08:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I agree. Started article [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:23, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Polar Bears? ==

Were polar species such as [[Polar Bear]]s and [[Penguin]]s to be found on the ark? I'm guessing they would not be friendly with their cell-mates for 40 days: Feeding regiments must have been tricky, but above all the middle-eastern climate must have been damaging to their well-being.

If God can flood the Earth, he can keep penguins alive. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If God can keep penguins alive, he could've just let all chosen animals and humans survive miraculously without the need for an ark. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I included a comment about dinosaurs, which conceivably could have had difficulty coexisting on the Ark with other animals, as another controversial issue about the Ark. However, I'm not sure why it was removed. [[User:Fairandbalanced|Fairandbalanced]] 22:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Not being the one who removed it, I couldn't say for sure, but it was a fairly vague criticism (what "difficulty"?), and not worthy of an encyclopedia article as it stood. However, I don't think locking the article was justified; apart from your (presumably well-intentioned) edit there was only ''one'' attempt at vandalism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Thanks. It seems like a fair amount of content on Conservapedia is locked from editing. In addition, it may be worth pointing out that as one possibility, the reason why dinosaurs are extinct is because they were not allowed on the Ark. [[User:Fairandbalanced|Fairandbalanced]] 10:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I was premature in the above comment, as according to this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp, dinosaurs were definitely on the ark. [[User:Fairandbalanced|Fairandbalanced]] 14:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are aware that this is a hotly debated topic, yes? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::It is important to consider that, pace Carl Everett, that dinosaurs and their fossilized 'remains' might well be red herrings of a sort, designed by Satan to trap or confuse the believer. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hmmm, I'll just point you to [[Theistic Evolution]] and [[Old Earth Creationism]], both classes consider themselves Christian. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Fairandbalanced''': Yes, the Bible says that two (or more) of ''every'' kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature were on the ark. This leaves two possibilities: (a) Dinosaurs were on the ark, or (b) dinosaurs were extinct before the flood. However, the second option is ruled out because there are fossils of them in flood-laid deposits, indicating that they were around at the time of the flood.

'''Hojimachong''', I'm not sure what you are getting at there. What is hotly debated? That dinosaurs were on the ark? Although there is a debate over whether the ark existed (as described in Genesis at least), I'm not aware of any real debate on, if the story is true, whether dinosaurs were on it.

'''DunsScotus''': No informed creationist claims that dinosaurs were designed by Satan to trap or confuse believers.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pic added==
And other improvements will follow. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Disambig [[Great Flood]]==
Great Flood should be a separate article, and the title should not have to redirect here. Noah's ark should be about the ark, it's description, and a history of searches for it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, and I've actually started drafting (off-line) an article for the flood itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Objections ==

This isn't a troll, though it may seem like one at times such is my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view. Bear with me, I'm genuinely interested in the answers to my objections. From my observations, it seems to me that creationists prefer answers to objections that don't break any known law of physics over the ultimate fallback, "god made it so with magic" wherever possible. For example, when it is pointed out that naval engineering even thousands of years later was not up to producing such a large vessel, fundamentalists seem to prefer to postulate that Noah used space frame construction rather than, say, god used magic to bring about a localised increase in the molecular binding force. Of course, none of the so-called "creationist scientists" would actually break out mathematica and attempt to prove such construction is possible, because I suspect in their hearts they know it is not. So, given this, I wonder how the following objections are reconciled with the real world:

: The Ark was supposed to be what amounts to a closed system for a year. In a year, animals will eat several times their body weight in food, especially grazers such as rabbits or cattle which derive very little nutrition from that food they eat. It follows that most of the Ark must have been given over to the storage of fresh water and food supplies, thus drastically reducing the space available for animals. Fresh water is always a problem in such situations, humans can drink spirits such as rum, which keep far longer than water does. However, most animals can not. By the second month, the fresh water supplies would be brackish and undrinkable, disease would quickly spread. Similarly, food would rot. It is not possible to preserve fodder for animals for an entire year. How is this reconciled with the rosy picture the bible paints?

: As already noted, most of the Ark must have been devoted to stores. It is accepted even by creationists that the Ark could not have contained even one pair of every species, instead they fall back on that ultimate moveable feast, [[Baramin]]. Personally, "kinds" simply sounds to me like a pre-scientific word for species, but lets accept the creationist definition for now. Given that we see from the debate topic that creationists do not believe in evolution to the point of a wolf becoming a domestic dog, how is this notion reconciled with the current diversity of species? Even if we accept evolution, how is it possible to reconcile the idea that all existing species descend from the occupants of the Ark, with the idea that all this happened only 5000 years ago? Observably too little time to account for the present diversity.

: The flood waters covered the entire world, yet once they had receded the occupants of the Ark were able to exit and continue with their lives much as they had done previously. Considering all vegetation must have been wiped out, how is this possible? As you can observe at any local beach, it takes a pretty hardy type of plant to thrive in a saltwater environment, these plants would be the first to return. Very little else would grow in the immediate aftermath of a global flood. It would take hundreds of years for vegetation to return to anything like what it was pre-flood. In the mean time, how did the animals survive? How did humans manage cultivation in an environment saturated with salt?

--[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 13:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Abrown, I'm sure it would have been possible for Noah's wife and daughters to have tended a vegetable and herb garden, perhaps with some (salt-sensitive) citrus trees for the duration of the flood. This would have reduced scurvy among the animals and family members, and provided fresh foodstuffs for the animals. It is important, moreover, to remember that this was the Lord's work, and what the Lord set asunder, He certainly worked to repair. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The Chronicles of Narnia

2007-03-28T22:03:54Z

DunsScotus: added CSL's focus on Islam in the Last Battle to the intro

The ''Chronicles of Narnia'' are a series of seven books written by [[C.S. Lewis]]. These books were written as a mythological retelling of the Bible and published yearly from 1950 to 1956. The [[Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]] was written based on the Gospels, [[The Magician's Nephew]] is a telling of Genesis, and [[The Last Battle]] as a telling of Revelation (albeit with more of a focus on Islam which post-dates the writing of Revelation).

ATTENTION: Spoilers Below!

==Book 1:[[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]==
This book is the first published of the seven Chronicles of Narnia(1950), written by Clive Sinclair Lewis, a noted English Christian writer. It introduces prominent characters to the series such as Aslan, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. Four children (Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy) enter Narnia and with the help of Aslan, talking beasts, and other mythical creatures overthrow the evil White Witch. It is no easy task and Aslan even puts his life on the line to save Edmund from the justice of the Witch. In the end the four children are crowned Kings and Queens and eventually return to our World (namely England during World War II.)<ref> The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co, 1970.</ref>

==Book 2:[[Prince Caspian]]==
This book involves the return to Narnia by the four children from [[The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe]] and how they again have to free Narnia from tyranny. They appear at their former castle which is now a ruin and meet the Dwarf Trumpkin. Trumpkin (thimbles and thunderbolts!) retells the history of young Prince Caspian whose Uncle Miraz holds the usurped throne. Caspian flees Miraz, joins the good Narnian creatures and engages in a war with the massive armies of his uncle. The children and the dwarf rush to Caspian's aide and meet Aslan on the way. They conquer Miraz's forces and reinstate Caspian as true king of Narnia. The children return their own world. The older children, Peter and Susan, are told they will not return to Narnia. <ref> [[Prince Caspian]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co. 1970.</ref>

==Book 3:[[The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]==
Lucy, Edmund and their cousin, Eustace, return to Narnia (or more specifically to the seas of Narnia.) They meet Caspian who is sailing on the ship, Dawn Treader. King Caspian is exploring new seas and searching for the seven Narnian lords whom his Uncle Miraz had forced to sail away into exile. Caspian hopes to sail to the world's end. They sail across the seas finding new lands, some Lords, and survive many dangers. They sail to the end of the world, leaving the mouse, Reepicheep. Aslan sends the children home, telling Edmund and Lucy they won't return. <ref> [[The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co.1970. </ref>

==Book 4:[[The Silver Chair]]==
Eustace and his school friend, Jill Pole, go to Narnia where Aslan gives them the task of finding Old Caspian's son, Prince Rillian. Aslan gives them specific instructions to follow so they might find the Prince. They, along with the marshwiggle, Puddleglum (this article will probably be deleted, I shouldn't wonder), search the lands sometimes following, sometimes forgetting Aslan's instructions. They eventually find the Prince underground and held prisoner. They free him and fight a battle with a dangerous serpent. They return to Narnia where Rillian arrives in time to see his father Caspian die. Aslan then sends the children home.<ref> [[The Silver Chair ]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co. 1970.</ref>

==Book 5:[[The Horse and His Boy]]==
This story is set back in the time when the original 4 children (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) rule in Narnia as kings and queens. The setting is to the south of Narnia, Calormene, where we meet Shasta, a young boy who is treated as a slave by his 'father.' When he learns that the old man isn't really his father, he makes a daring escape with the talking war horse Bree. Later on he meets up and travels with Aravis, a young royal girl running from a forced marriage, and her talking mare, Hwin. They travel across the deserts of Calormene and end up racing to Narnia and their ally, Archenland, to warn them of a Calormene invasion. They arrive in time and conquer the invaders. To his surprise, Shasta finds he is a twin son of the king of Archenland, and marries Aravis "so as to go on (arguing and making up) more conveniently."<ref> [[The Horse and His Boy]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co.1970. p.216. </ref>

==Book 6:[[The Magician's Nephew]]==
This story goes back to the original creation of Narnia and how the White Witch first came (she is called Queen Jadis.) It includes two children, Digory and Polly, who are tricked into entering other worlds by Digory's Uncle Andrew. They release the witch from her own world and bring her (along with Uncle Andrew, a London cabby, and a horse) into what would become Narnia. Aslan creates Narnia and commands Digory to heal the hurt he has started. In the end, Aslan returns the children to England and gives Digory some medicine to heal his dying mother. <ref> [[The Magician's Nephew]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co. 1970. </ref>

==Book 7:[[The Last Battle]]==
The end of Narnia comes in this book. A evil monkey, Shift, convinces a gullible donkey, Puzzle, to dress up in a lion's suit and pretend to be Aslan. The beasts of Narnia are thus deceived and enslaved by Shift, allowing the Calormenes to invade Narnia. The king is imprisoned but is freed by Jill and Eustace, who mount a last ditch attack on the ape and the Calormenes. They are outnumbered and the evil Calormene god, Tash, enters the scene in the stable where Eustace, Jill and the King are thrown. Fortunately Tash is cast out by High King Peter, who has appeared with Edmund, Lucy, Diggory, and Polly (Susan has forgotten about Narnia) to witness Narnia's end. Aslan ends Narnia and leads all good creatures to a new land. The children then learn that they all died in a railway accident and that they will remain there happily ever after. <ref> [[The Last Battle]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillam Publishing Co. 1970.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T22:02:14Z

DunsScotus: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The father of nominalism one good friar [[User:BenjaminW|BenjaminW]] 17:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I still think you're a parody. You can't possibly believe all the stuff you write.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Ames, don't foist the poverty of your imagination upon me. In God, all things are possible. All desires known. And no secrets are hid. That's the world in which we should live, not this fallen and destitute one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sue Me :) My name's anagram is "Jonah's Angoras". I'm a big old nerd who loves JESUS. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Flippin that was not very nice. Do not take the Lord's name in vain! [User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]
So how do you explain the defense of Nessie as a modern dinosaur, and "Jesus spoke English," unless you're a parody? Again, funny stuff.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, if your desire is to be expunged from Conservapedia with the rest of your liberal agitators, that's fine, but don't trammel my work. To my knowledge, nobody has seen Nessie, and so it is formally possible she could be a dinosaur, that survived the Flood and the subsequent post-flood dislocations. Moreover, that's a good deal more possible given the Biblical Time Scale. I never said that Jesus spoke English, just that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired and truly doing His work. I'm not sure what the rest of your critiques mean, but you're obviously a hostile secularist, and largely without merit. I've observed your materialist attempts to champion evolution, and that's actively hostile to the will of the Lord. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T21:55:12Z

DunsScotus: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The father of nominalism one good friar [[User:BenjaminW|BenjaminW]] 17:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I still think you're a parody. You can't possibly believe all the stuff you write.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Ames, don't foist the poverty of your imagination upon me. In God, all things are possible. All desires known. And no secrets are hid. That's the world in which we should live, not this fallen and destitute one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T21:51:42Z

DunsScotus: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T21:49:14Z

DunsScotus: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T21:45:20Z

DunsScotus: added further information to my user page

Primum rerum Principium mihi ea credere, sapere ac proferre concedat, quae ipsius placeant maiestati et ad eius contemplationem elevent mentes nostras.

Domine Deus noster, Moysi servo tuo, de tuo nomine filiis Israel proponendo, a te Doctore veracissimo sciscitanti, sciens quid posset de te concipere intellectus mortalium, nomen tuum benedictum reserans, respondisti: EGO SUM, QUI SUM. Tu es verum esse, tu es totum esse. Hoc, si mihi esset possibile, scire vellem. Adiuva me, Domine, inquirentem ad quantam cognitionem de vero esse, quod tu es, possit pertingere nostra ratio naturalis ab ente, quod de te praedicasti, inchoando.

== About Me ==

I believe in God as the only and absolute source of Truth, and I want to bring all men to His light.

In terms of this project, I want it to represent, as much as possible, Inerrant Biblical Truth.

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T21:43:16Z

DunsScotus: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Panel

2007-03-28T21:41:16Z

DunsScotus:

That hardly sounds like a panel of objective experts...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is it supposed to be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I have SERIOUS issues with the "anonymous members" bit. Members in this position should HAVE to be marked as such. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::OOO, OOO, can I be a member? I'll be ever so good! I promise I won't let my high school studies, lack of life experience or religious brain washing get in the way of making good fair decisions! Pwetty Please? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It has already been set up as anonymous and it is unlikely to change. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 16:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:So, a few anonymous Panel members could push their own point of view, and once it gets pushed back towards whatever passes as "neutrality" here, the Panel members could declare that this is a major conflict and should be handled... by the Panel. And nobody would of the conflict of interest. How convenient! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: how do we know a panel even exists! This looks serious bent, like a banana republic wiki! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Sunlight is the best disinfectant. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"We do not censor in any way"

It is a shame that many of your editors do not agree with that policy, see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soccer&diff=56791&oldid=48604 for one incidence of very silly deletion. If you ''truly'' did not censor you would not keep closing the facility to create accounts.
:Well, to be fair, we are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia because (1) we do not follow the GFDL and (2) Andy made it a rule.
:However, there is censoring going on. Look at Conservative's edits that removed entire sections (with cites) simply because he didn't want his little propaganda piece to be cluttered with silly things like science. Or heck, look at some of the locked articles and their histories in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::How do we know that these panel members are up to date on the "major conflicts" they recieve? Do they actively edit here and follow the ongoing debates? What's to stop them from becoming another [[user:conservative]] or [[user:scorpion]]? And they should definitely '''not''' be anonymous. It's easy to hide behind anonymimity (sp, too lazy to look it up for real), but it takes a real man (or woman) to stand up and declare "I did it." [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biblical Justification ==

In Matthew, 21:12-16:

12 And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of he money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves;

13 and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.

14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were moved with indignation,

16 and said unto him, Hearest thou what these are saying? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea: did ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise? [[http://www.answers.com/topic/bible-american-standard-matthew]]

What better body to judge the quick and the dead (if it were) or other disputes on Conservapedia than the innocent, home-schooled babes of the Panel? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

2007-03-28T18:29:18Z

DunsScotus:

Create article. I love these books. i have read each like 4 times. so cool. their not as heavy as [[The Lord of the Rings]] so it is so mmuch easier to read and they are just as enjoyable as [[The Lord of the Rings]]. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Editors,
There appears to be some sort of block on part of this article. When The Silver Chair was typed in it did not appear on the final page. I copied it so it appears on the editing page twice and once on the final copy. Could you find out why it does this so anyone who wants to edit The Silver Chair won't get confused when they look at the editing page? --User: [[Additioner]] ,27 March 2007

:Consider mentioning CS Lewis's original order for the novels, and the re-published order (in time for the release of the feature film)? Also, I think the referents for some of the references (ie, which figure is Mohammed in ''Last Battle'') should be made explicit. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2007-03-28T15:59:52Z

DunsScotus: /* 3000 BC? */

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== On Kant ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Black Sea flood? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This article will be replaced ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 3000 BC? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Great Flood

2007-03-28T14:28:14Z

DunsScotus: /* 3000 BC? */

Talk:Permian extinction:civilization

2007-03-26T22:35:15Z

DunsScotus:

this entire article is incompatible with Biblical Truth. Vote for deletion, or a counter-perspective.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be put in register with what we understand from the Bible? Is permian extinction just another name for the Great Flood? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it's vandalism. There's no evidence that there was intelligent life in the Permian, or any species that developed civilization before humans, and by reading it, it seems like tha author has created an alternate history starting from the premise that civilization developed in the Permian. This article should be deleted. --[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 17:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is the weirdest article I've seen on this site - and that's saying something. If it even confuses the erudite Mr Scotus then it must be bad. An appropriate fate would be deletion. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this article could be saved, or perhaps merged with the [[Great Flood.]] I took a crack at it. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::An interesting (and quick)edit Mr Scotus. But the article is still headed "civilization". Might that not be confusing?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not sure how to rename the entire article, British_cons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:35, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Permian extinction:civilization

2007-03-26T21:18:29Z

DunsScotus:

Permian extinction:civilization

2007-03-26T21:17:53Z

DunsScotus: major edit, to relieve some of the bizareness in the text, and to restore appropriate perspective.

Permian extinction:civilization

2007-03-26T21:16:08Z

DunsScotus:

== Permian Extinction and the Great Flood ==

Secularist thinkers have attempted to undermine Biblical principles by introducing multiple ''extinction'' events into their version of human history. One such event is called the 'Permian Extinction' but this might be better called the [[Great Flood.]] It is important to recognize, however, that secularist thinkers are tapping into essential Biblical realities. The Lord did attempt to extinguish all life on Earth, however, this was the [[Great Flood]] and not the 'Permian Extinction.'

== Secularist Musings ==

For secularists, several large extinction events have been posited, the most dramatic being the Permian Extinction (which might correspond to the [[Great Flood]]). For secularist thinkers, this event occurred "millions of years" ago, and formed the boundary between two [[geologic eras.]] Furthermore, the P-T (Permian-Triassic) boundary serves as a useful dating mechanism. Theories advanced by secularist thinkers include a) issues with the Pangea super continent b) comet impact c) supernova eruption but do not include the Lord's wrath at his sinful creation and decision to employ a [[Great Flood]] to wipe out all life on earth. Regardless, many secularists believe that a number of species became extinct during this time period.

== Resources ==
;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction Permian extinction in OTL]

;[http://www.peabody.yale.edu/explore/aor/reptiles_04.html One artist's conception of Permian scenery]
;[http://universe-review.ca/I10-32-Permian.jpg Another artist's idea]
;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian The OTL Permian period according to Wikipedia]
;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_tetrapods Animals that might have evolved into ATL "people" or been used for food or as beasts-of-burden]

Large animals included [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgonopsia gorgonopsians] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicynodont dicynodonts], including the major large animal that survived the OTL extinction, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lystrosaurus lystrosaurs].

Seafood included (possibly) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollusk mollusks], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod brachiopods], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonite ammonites], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite trilobites], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod cephalopods], and various other critters.

Vegetation included (in what is now South China in OTL) swampy plants such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidodendron lepidodendron trees] that lived in swamp forests and (elsewhere) plenty of conifers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginkgo ginkgo trees], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycad cycads] (cycads probably occurring in tropical and other warm areas, which may have been practically everywhere in the warmer parts of the extinction period).

==Map==
[[Image:Permian world map (Permian Extinction-Civilization).jpg|thumb|right|350px|The map.]]
[[:Image:Permian world map (Permian Extinction-Civilization).jpg|World map (yeah, rudimentary, but I'll work at it)]]

Talk:Permian extinction:civilization

2007-03-26T21:05:29Z

DunsScotus:

Talk:Tom Brady

2007-03-26T21:02:27Z

DunsScotus:

A photo would be nice--[[User:Rexislexis|Rexislexis]] 00:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll do that as soon as I'm finished with the actual article.----[[User:Tash]] 00:42, 24 March 2007 (EST)

Mention should be made of Brady's immoral copulating outside of marriage. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T23:00:11Z

DunsScotus: /* Arguments */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:58:25Z

DunsScotus:

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:57:51Z

DunsScotus: reverted non-vandalized edition

Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes, such as proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640] However, the journal later withdrew the article citing improper reviewing practices. [http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp]), but it is steadily growing. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] This information was originally published in a press release from the [[Discovery Institute]]. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html]

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."[http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp]
== Evidence ==
One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was [[Michael J. Behe]]'s. Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.
== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy.
:Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its vast sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer?

:Watches prove human designers. By the same token, humans (which are infinitely more sophisticated than watches) prove an Intelligent Designer.

Other Intelligent Design advocates propose the "eye" as a problem for evolution.
:What good is part of an eye? Seeing is binary, you can or you cannot. Darwinian evolution cannot explain how an eye can evolve, because only a whole eye, entire, is of any utility.

:Eyes prove Intelligent Designers. Without the craftsmanship of the divine, there wouldn't be the fine-ness and diversity of creation.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Permian extinction:civilization

2007-03-23T22:56:36Z

DunsScotus:

this entire article is incompatible with Biblical Truth. Vote for deletion, or a counter-perspective.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*I've been vandalized! It was Socialist4557!* [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Permian extinction:civilization

2007-03-23T22:54:59Z

DunsScotus:

this entire article is incompatible with Biblical Truth. Vote for deletion, or a counter-perspective.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*I've been vandalized!* [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Permian extinction:civilization

2007-03-23T22:50:48Z

DunsScotus: New page: this entire article is incompatible with Biblical Truth. Vote for deletion, or a counter-perspective.~~~~

this entire article is incompatible with Biblical Truth. Vote for deletion, or a counter-perspective.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:49:17Z

DunsScotus: /* Analogies */

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:44:56Z

DunsScotus: /* Creationists */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:43:45Z

DunsScotus: removed secularist edits

Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes, such as proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640] However, the journal later withdrew the article citing improper reviewing practices. [http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp]), but it is steadily growing. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] This information was originally published in a press release from the [[Discovery Institute]]. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html]

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."[http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp]
== Evidence ==
One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was [[Michael J. Behe]]'s. Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.
== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Scientists allege that random causation can account for even the greatest complexity, whereas intelligent design proponents and creation scientists assume that given the deliberate nature of the watch, it must have had external design.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:39:10Z

DunsScotus: /* Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Insecticide

2007-03-23T22:34:38Z

DunsScotus:

An '''insecticide''' is a [[chemical]] used in insect control, agriculture, and medicine. Relatively few deaths have occurred among workers handling poisonous agricultural products or insecticides.{{fact}} Those that have occurred can be traced to disregard of safety directions found on product labels.{{fact}} There are many types of insecticides on the market today.

==Safety==
Early symptoms and signs of organic phosphate poisoning include headache, dizziness, blurred vision, weakness, chest discomfort and nervousness, a little later - nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, sweating, tears, salivation, slow pulse, muscular tremors and possibly convulsions. This group of insecticides enters the body through ingestion (swallowing), inhalation (breathing), and absorption (through the skin). Symptoms and signs of carbamate poisoning include constriction of pupils, salivation, profuse sweating, fatigue, muscular incoordination, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and chest tightness. This group of insecticides can enter the body through ingestion (swallowing), inhalation (breathing), and absorption (through the skin). One of the most common signs of synthetic pyrethroid poisoning is a stuffy, runny nose and scratchy throat from inhalation of partly purified pyrethrum extract. Asthmatic wheezing may occur in susceptible individuals. Sudden bronchospasm, swelling of oral and laryngeal mucous membranes, and shock (anaphylaxis) have been reported after pyrethrum inhalation. Delayed appearance of breathing difficulty, cough and fever, with patchy lung infiltrates on x-ray suggest hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Nervous irritability, tremors, and inability to coordinate muscular movements have occurred rarely in persons who have had massive inhalation exposure to pyrethrins.

==Incesticides in Agriculture==
Incesticides have been used since the inception of the [[Green Revolution]] in agriculture. Years of research and testing have resulted in a number of safe agricultural practices. Farmers should remember to destroy their crop remains following last harvest as well as to control weed hosts in unused fields, along field edges, and in the production fields. It is a good practice to rotate vegetable crops with cover crops or other crops that are not susceptible to the same pests. Fallowing and clean cultivation reduces many pests in fields not being used. Flooding with water where mosquitoes are not an issue may be done for 6 to 8 weeks once a year and can reduce many pests. These measures might be considered where sod or crop growth is not needed to reduce plant bed erosion and sand blasting.

==DDT==
A proven anti-mosquito agent that was able to eradicate [[malaria]] in America and elsewhere in the first world was viciously and unfairly attacked by [[Rachel Carson]] and the environmentalist movement. Millions of people (some estimate over 300 million) have died as a result of US environmental regulations designed to protect endangered species. Furthermore, a DDT ban with the WHO has resulted in many needless deaths that could have otherwise prevented. [http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/nr_051401.html] Now, the head of the World Bank, prominent [[neo-conservative]] [[Paul Wolfowitz]], has embraced the life-saving use of DDT. [http://www.fightingmalaria.org/]

Separation of church and state

2007-03-23T22:26:31Z

DunsScotus: corrected spelling, removed obviously inflamatory statement

'''Separation of church and state''' is a very loose interpretation of part of the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]]. The section in question reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....".<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti 1st Amendment of the US Constitution]</ref> This phrase is commonly interpreted to mean that all issues regarding the [[Government]] and those regarding the [[Church]] be kept seperate. However, strict-constructionists insist that the constitution must be interpreted verbatim.

[[Thomas Jefferson]] first coined the phrase in 1801.<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html Religion and the Federal Government], ''LOC.gov''</ref>, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association<ref>[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the DBA]</ref>

The [[Treaty of Tripoli]], drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.] Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</ref> Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superseded by the [[Treaty of Peace and Amity]] in 1805 (although the superseding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States).

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:24:26Z

DunsScotus: /* Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-03-23T22:20:13Z

DunsScotus: /* Biographical data */

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Total Fag" ==

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-23T22:16:20Z

DunsScotus: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Arguments for Slavery==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2007-03-23T22:03:39Z

DunsScotus: /* On Kant */

Talk:Great Flood

2007-03-23T22:03:23Z

DunsScotus: /* On Kant */

Talk:Great Flood

2007-03-23T21:55:59Z

DunsScotus:

Talk:Great Flood

2007-03-23T21:53:56Z

DunsScotus: /* Article layout */

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== On Kant ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== On Truth ==

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

== Black Sea flood? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T21:50:11Z

DunsScotus:

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-23T21:44:08Z

DunsScotus: /* On the Punishment of the Damned */

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-23T21:38:37Z

DunsScotus: /* On the Punishment of the Damned */

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T21:36:26Z

DunsScotus: /* why aren't you counting this? */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T21:33:49Z

DunsScotus:

Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes, such as proscribe by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640] However, the journal later withdrew the article citing improper reviewing practices. [http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp]), but it is steadily growing. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] This information was originally published in a press release from the [[Discovery Institute]]. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html]

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."[http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp]

== Evidence ==

One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was [[Michael J. Behe]]'s. Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.

== Analogies ==

Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine you are walking along a beach, and you suddenly encounter a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Evolutionary thinkers would have us believe that humans (the wrist-watch) just evolved there, on the beach, whereas Intelligent Design advocates properly realize that the watch (us, ourselves) was simply created, by God.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T21:28:28Z

DunsScotus: /* what is wrong with this sentence? */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T21:06:23Z

DunsScotus: /* what is wrong with this sentence? */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-23T21:02:47Z

DunsScotus: /* On the Punishment of the Damned */

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T21:00:57Z

DunsScotus:

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T20:57:34Z

DunsScotus: /* what is wrong with this sentence? */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one.

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)