Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-08T17:50:36Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

==Any Suggestions==

Do I need to add anymore than that? How do you propose the flood broke up the super-continent to form the world as we know it in a year? From the miniature tectonic activities we have in our current environment causing the massive natural disasters they do, would this not have destroyed the world with mega-earthquakes and unending volcanic eruptions, changing the very chemical make-up of the atmosphere?{{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}
: You might like to have a look over the articles [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/ here]. I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects. The ''intention'' was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?). And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity ''affected'' the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
::I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enormously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastrophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)

Good point, but are you an expert in the field, or just (like Philip and myself) a well-educated layman? We need to quote authoritative sources in our articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, I'm no expert. It was just what came to my head as I read the article. If I had references etc. to cite then I might have added a sub-heading on the article about it. Maybe I'll be able to back up my words with qualifications one day, but untill then I'll just share my theories with people. Also, with the 'intention to destroy the world' part Philip, I was more refering to tectonic activity making the world completely uninhabitable for any human beings in the time suceeding the flood, rather than being part of the judgement of mankind which is embodied by the flood. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:37, 19th November 2008(EST)
::: "''If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article...''": It is not accurate to say that the article implies that. It mentions two different flood-related possibilities. First, that the break-up occurred during the time of Peleg, which would indeed mean that Pangea existed when the ark landed. In this case, your description of the consequences is likely close to correct. However, it then also says that ''most'' creationists believe that it occurred ''during'' the flood, which means that Pangea had ceased to exist at the time the ark came to rest, and therefore the consequences that you describe would not have occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::True, I had factored in something else which I should have mentioned, which is the idea of exotic animal migration - namely the kangaroo's - to places like Australia. I absolutely deny the theory which says they could have migrated there with lower sea levels as a scientific theory - it is a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's. In the article's themselves, they say that of places such as Krakatoa, that [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "it was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes, and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things."] However, the instruments whereby small animals migrate are well-known, and the limitation on specific animals which can journey by such methods is also well known. As I said this is an 'if and maybe' scenario, and provides no evidence to suggest this possible method of migration should or would transpose onto kangaroo's. The article also speaks about Kangaroo's spreading out over time, but there is no fossil evidence of any such slow-paced migration . He also states that "The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct." However, again, there is no fossil evidence of kangaroos living anywhere but Australia. The author cites rabbits who have migrated across Australia as an example of long distance migrations, however they moved with human populations, and also didn't have to cross any major bodies of water, which the kangaroo's would have had to do at some point. The author in this article also states that specialized, localized populations may have come to be out of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation."], which surely removes itself from a true creationist perspective, as it basically states the creatures [http://www.answers.com/evolution evolved] to suit their surroundings. So if we take the existence of a post-flood Pangaea as the only possible explanation of kangaroo - and other exotic creaturs - migration, then the argument can stand. As I said, mine is only a theory, but I also don't accept the science behind the migratory explanation, so I cannot accept that as a defeating criticism.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:02 20th November 2008(EST)

::::: I understand what you are saying about animal migration, but just as you describe it as a "a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's", your response is simply a bit of hand-waving to say that we know how smaller creatures did it and bigger creatures can't. But there's been plenty examples in science of unexpected discoveries. It's a big leap from "we can't imagine how it's possible" to "it couldn't have happened that way".
::::: When creationists point to gaps in the fossil record, we are told how sparse it is. Yet now I'm supposed to believe that it's complete enough to be able to dismiss an argument from a ''lack'' of evidence? If some things are totally absent from the fossil record for over a supposed 60 million years, then of what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?
::::: No, I'm pretty certain that rabbits spread across Australia by their own means, just as the cane toad is currently spreading across Australia, despite human attempts to stop it.
::::: Evolution from the first cell to the variety of creatures that we have today requires a massive ''increase'' in genetic information. That increase is not actually observed. What ''is'' observed, however, is ''decreases'' in information, but ''decreases'' are not microbes-to-man evolution. You can redefine evolution all you like, including into forms that creationists agree with (e.g. a current popular one is ''variations in gene frequency''), but the point is that it is the evolutionary "family tree", not changes in gene frequency, that creationists disagree with.
::::: I'm not sure that I get your final point. You seem to be saying that the idea of Pangea splitting up during the flood doesn't work because it doesn't explain animal migration, so you prefer the idea of Pangea splitting up ''after'' the flood, despite ''that'' idea not working because nothing would survive the split?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: You got my final point exactly friend; that I came to a paradox in my thinking, one that I couldn't solve. That's why I re-titled this page as "Any Suggestions", and they are welcome. It's positive debate as I see it. I don't see that scientific evolution has described to any complete degree the world coming to be at it is, but at present, I am looking for an explanation which I feel is right, and that - in my opinion - can only be found through observation, experience and reason.
:::::: Where you talk about my ''hand-waving'' though, I feel this is maybe a little unfair. When we speak of evolution, it is sometimes suggested that ''what is observed'' is insufficient to explain microbe to man evolution, and I can understand that point. What I am saying is that, while we have ''observed'' ways and means in which small creatures can traverse large distances, we have also observed that these means are not usable as the means of transporting larger creatures. Therefore, I see no reason to make the assumption that larger creatures could have traversed such distances, just as you see no reason to accept microbe to man evolution. I'm not trying to force an evolutionary explanation on you, but to discuss the problems I see.
:::::: "''what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?''" I think the significance for me is that there aren't as many ''recent'' gaps in fossil evidence. If a creature was supposed to have migrated from somewhere within a few thousand years of today, then it is highly probable that there would be fossil evidence to support this. I can understand the point you make again, and I have to agree to some degree that fossil evidence can in some cases be incomplete, inadequate and somewhat [http://www.trilobites.info/anohome.html misleading, as shown by the Anomalocas], although this is usually with ''older'' fossil records.
::::::The rabbits spreading of their own accord is a moot point, given that they still did not need to traverse any great body of water. I wasn't trying to redefine evolution either. I provided a dictionary definition because I felt that what he had described - in essence the specialization of creatures to their environment - was akin to what I take to be evolution. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)
This may seem odd (not sure of right word so odd will do) but some arguments about the flood suggests the involvement(interferance/intervention) of God to ensure the survival of the ark and subsequent survival of Noah etc. If you accept that premise then the diapora(?) of the animals or surviving the breakup of Pangea becomes moot. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)

: (To Entheogenicorder) Perhaps the "hand-waving" comment was a bit unnecessary, but my point was that you were simply waving away an argument with little to go on. I understand what you are saying about observations, but I guess my point was that observations in this case are very inconclusive.
: Another point that I didn't mention is that it may be that the kangaroos that arrived here did so as young roos, not fully-grown adults. Would that fit in with the size range that you are talking about that we have observed covering water stretches? Another possibility that may be unlikely but I don't think can be ruled out is that they were brought across by humans.
: As for the rabbits, I agree that they didn't have to cross large bodies of water. But you appeared to be making two distinct points there, that they move (a) with humans, and (b) not across water. I grant you the second, but I was replying to the first.
: The reference I made to fossils missing for 60 million years was actually to things that are still alive, but are missing for the ''last'' 60 million years; hence they are missing from the ''recent'' fossil record as well as the ancient one.
: My reference to "you" redefining evolution was plural: "you" meaning "evolutionists", not ''you'' specifically.
: (To Markr) Biblical evidence is that God kept the use of miracles to a minimum. Genesis specifically records that God brought the animals to Noah, but not that he assisted their distribution after.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)
:: I was not 'waving away' anything. I was commenting on an encyclopedic entry which, as such, purports to be truth, with theoretical arguments against said encyclopedic entry. My lack of concrete evidence for my argument is a moot point given the lack of scientific evidence for the content of the article itself, given that mine is a criticism of something which poses itself as a truth.
:: I don't think in all truth that young roos - or any roos - could successfully have made the journey, across land and sea, without some sort of aid, so the suggestion of human interference seems the most plausible, without being much to go on.
:: What I was referring to with the rabbits - if I must expand, despite it being a moot point - was more that their populations would thrive with human influence - the harsh outback would not be friendly to a rabbit, and there would be little food untill humans settled down and grew crops and suchlike. Given this, it is quite likely that without human influence they would not thrive as they have done. It is interesting to note the example of the Cane toad, as they have been an example of evolution in action since their introduction to a new [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html environment].
:: If we take it as true that there have been periods of history lasting 60 million years, then we also accept the changing nature of the earth, and the possibility of fossils being lost, even in the ''last'' 60 million years. Within the last ten thousand years or so is another matter, and as any archaeologist will probably testify, there are constant discoveries being made and therefore amendments to what we know or can learn from fossils.
:: I think the definition of evolution as a term, and natural selection as a theory, has changed very little since Darwin theorized the history of life. The agents which we believe natural selection to work on have changed, and as such, natural selection can be observed now on a microscopic level in genes, and this has led to changes in exactly how it is viewed. To the extent that bacteria can be viewed to evolve even in the [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html lab]. I very much resent being labelled under the terms of ''evolutionists'' without note though. Yes, it's true that I accept hard fact, and that scientific evidence has not been in any effective way refuted in this field, however, that does not mean that I deny the existence of God, nor does it necessarily mean that I absolutely reject the Bible. The most convincing argument I have ever heard for the existence of God can be put into one statement, that any act of creation must involve the creation of a being with a history that never took [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa2-cr.htm place.] Essentially, it goes that Adam was created as a full grown adult, this gives the appearance of having been a child, and a baby, with a naval or bellybutton, giving evidence of Adam having had a father before him. Given that Adam was the first person created, this appearance of history is false, but is still evident from research. This means that we can make accurate scientific or geological observations of a deep and distant past, which only in truth existed inside the mind of God. So the evolution of genes, and even speculatively the Big Bang, may be said to be the working of God's mind before we were born into physical existence.
:: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 08:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::: I don't see any reason that the Kangaroos would have trouble crossing the land. As for them crossing the water, you haven't explained why some small creatures that you say can cross water could do so but not young kangaroos.
::: As far as the rabbits in the outback are concerned, you ''may'' be right, but note that Australia built some very long fences ''in the outback'' to limit the spread of the rabbits. Yes, there probably was human activity there, but it would have been minimal. Cane toads have shown no evidence of evolution of the sort that creationists object to. What the news report is referring to is ''adaptation'' within the genetic variability of the cane toads.
::: I don't follow your point about missing fossils; it seems to be just special pleading to dismiss my objections to your earlier claim.
::: Lenski's research, even if it is genuinely new genetic information produced by chance, is actually an argument ''against'' goo-to-you evolution, as it shows extremely ''little'' evolution occurs over a large number of generations.
::: Scientific evidence may not have been refuted, but evolution is mostly philosophy and story telling, with only a small amount of scientific evidence, most of which is also compatible with creation.
::: You may not deny the existence of a god, or of parts of the Bible, but if you believe evolution, you must of necessity reject those foundational parts of the Bible that are inconsistent with it, such as the creation of the world in six days, the creation being "very good" (without fault), and death occurring only after the appearance of mankind.
::: If the argument you mention is the most convincing argument you've heard for the existence of God, then it would appear that you've heard very little on the subject. The argument is false anyway, in proposing a history for Adam. Being created as a fully-grown man only gives the appearance of him having been a child if you reject that God could create him as an adult (and that therefore the only way an adult could come about is by being a child first). As a belly button is a scar (not a design feature) of an event that never occurred, Adam would not have had one, so this "evidence" is invented. You are confusing an appearance of adulthood with an appearance of ''aging'', and the processes that go along with that. That is, Adam would have appeared as an adult, true, but without any evidence of having grown older or of a past life, such as scars, wrinkles, callouses, or the like, that would be evidence of actual events happening. A machine such as a television, fresh off the factory floor, is ''complete'', but without scratches, worn parts, etc. which come with ''aging''. Adam would have been like that. The analogy with cosmology and genetics follows: Any evidence of actual events happening indicates that those things happened; they were not fake history created by God. But similarly, evidence that is not actually of events happening, but which ''assume'' that a history was required, is not ''evidence'', but ''presumption''. For the same reason, creationists generally reject the idea that God created starlight in transit, because that starlight carries information about events happening, such as stars going nova, that would never have happened if the starlight was created in transit. But similarly, they reject claims about ages based on presumptions that things started off in particular states when it is just as valid to claim that God created them that way.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 5 December 2008 (EST)
: I see a problem in that they would have passed through many different environments in getting to Australia, so they would surely need to adapt to those environments. With regards to young roos being able to cross the water easily, we know that they spend much of their young lives depending on their mothers for protection and sustinance, so that means the journey would have had to fit nicely into the alotted time period between dependence and full-grown maturity, which is doubtful. If young roos are able to travel in the same way as other small mammals, it begs the question why they would not migrate further beyond Australia, to colonize other islands, as other small animals have done. Did they set off from the Middle East with the objective of ending up in Australia? Was it by luck that they ended up there?
: I don't necessarily believe in the evolution of Mankind - at least not the evolution of our conscious, reasoning minds - but even the slow evolution demonstrated in the lab is evidence of ''some'' evolution, no matter how little, in some creatures. Even waiting 41,000 generations - very much within the lifetime of one scientist - to see genetic mutations, is a small number of generations in terms of a 6 billion year earth-history.
: Regarding fossils, I know there isn't a perfect picture of the past 60 million year history, my point was that if you accept that the earth has had a 60 million year history, then you also have to accept dramatic geological changes as part of the earths history, and these will lead to the destruction of historical evidence. The fact that there is evidence of such an ancient history is in itself scientific evidence that the Biblical accounts of creation are incorrect or inadequate.
: Evolution is philosophy and story telling in as much as the scientific observation of ones environment can be. The genetic age has demonstrated that genes are passed from both parents down to their child, and that mutations in parental genes - such as genetic disorders - therefore appear in their children. In this, and as with the example of the cane toad and many [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878?maxtoshow=3D&HITS= more] we can see evolution to some extent at work.
: I see your argument against the appearance of a history but I don't necessarily agree. When you speak of ageing features - scars, wrinkles etcetera, this would not be the appearance of history I was referring to. It was the appearance of growth, rather than ageing - that God would have created Adam with fingernails, hair and eyesight, all traits which a human being otherwise has to grow or learn, not ones they are born with. The appearance of history exists insomuch as Adam is a functioning human being. Regarding the example you give with the television, I would say that the construction of the component parts for the television may be analogous with the construction of genetic material for human beings. Equally I would not like to make an analogy between Gods creation and mankinds creation, as that would imply the assumption of God having ''constructed'' us in a similar way to the way we construct inanimate objects. I believe if God did create us, it would be far more complex than this and could not be described wholly in any human given description. The argument I was putting forward is one which has existed for many years, and I don't think you've fully addressed to absolute nature of it, which is looked at in greater depth in the reference given.
: I did not want this to turn in to a creation - evolution argument, but that seems to be the only grounds on which I will find any sort of reasoned debate. A theological debate without jumping back to the idea that 'the Bible says this so it must be right' or that 'scientist have no evidence' seems impossible, though it would be beneficial to Christian dogma and any idea of the pursuit of truth to engage in one fully.
: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:: How many different environments between the middle east and Australia would there have been in the first few hundred years after a global flood wiped everything out? I doubt that there would be much in the way of deserts by then, for example.
:: I don't think the journey is doubtful at all on the basis that the journey would have to fit into the time between dependence and maturity. If you've got enough of the animals around, chances are ''some'' will be at just the right stage to make the water-crossing part of the journey.
:: Once you've got to Australia, there's not much place left to go that is not across larger stretches of water. No, they would not have targetted Australia. Rather, what's likely is that the sea levels rose (at the end of the [[ice age]]) and cut off or increased the gap from the mainland after the marsupials reached Australia and before large carnivorous animals reached Australia. When spreading out from the middle east after the flood, the carnivorous animals are not going to lead the way; they are going to follow the vegetarians. The vegetarians would lead. Everywhere but Australia the carnivores eventually caught up and wiped them out, but the ones that reached Australia became isolated so survived.
:: 41,000 generations might seem a small number in terms of a six billion year earth history, but (a) Earth's history is only supposed to be 4.5 billion years; (b) life on Earth is only supposed to be around 3.5 billion years old, (c) humans are supposed to have evolved around, say one million years ago, from a common ancestor with the apes around, say, six million years ago. This means that humans evolved from that common ancestor in around 200,000 generations. With one mutation per 41,000 generations, that allows for about ''five'' mutations! But it's worse than that. With sexual reproduction, there's only a 50% chance of any mutation being passed on, so you'd only get to keep two or three of those five! ''That'' is why Lenski's research is so bad for the evolutionary hypothesis (one reason anyway).
:: Okay, I ''think'' that I understand your argument about the fossil record. Is this it? If the Earth has a 60-million year history, it would have lots of gaps in the fossil record. But if it has a 6,000 year-history, the fossil record would be pretty complete. Is that it? If so, the problem is that if the Earth has a 6,000-year history, the vast majority of the fossil record comes from the one year of the flood around 4,500 years ago, and comparatively very little since. So under ''either'' scenario, the "recent" fossil record is very incomplete. As for the "fact" of evidence of an ancient history, I reject that there is any such "fact". Dates are based on the belief and on assumptions, not directly on measurements (see [[radiometric dating]]).
:: Evolution is not philosophy and story telling like scientific ''observation'' is, because molecules-to-man evolution is ''not'' observed! If I propose that water boils at 120 degrees Celsius, you can test that claim for yourself, and ''observe'' the results. If you propose that 100 million years ago dinosaurs turned into birds, what test can I do to see if your claim is correct? Testing the boiling point of water is science. Claiming that dinosaurs turned into birds is story-telling. Genetic changes that don't add new genetic information—such as wings on cane toads (or even something less dramatic but still something ''new'')—is not molecules-to-man evolution, but merely variation within the created kind.
:: Your reference to fingernails, hair, and eyesight is a distinction without substance. There is no reason for God not to have created man with these features, so, as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved. Unlike scars, etc., fingernails, hair, and eyesight are ''design features'', not the products of wear and tear, and for that matter, are present from conception in the form of genetic information.
:: I did miss reading your reference about different views on apparent age. It is a reasonable summary of the different positions as far as it goes, but doesn't really get into the problems with each view very much. It lists the "theological questions" as being non-existent for the (misnamed) "Ham" view, but not for your view; although it only discusses what these problems are in the briefest possible way. It says that the "Ham" view has the most "scientific challenges", but accepts ''a priori'' that those "challenges" really are ''scientific'', which the "Ham" view rejects (i.e. it takes sides). "Conventional" geology ''starts'' by rejecting the biblical account (Hutton said that geology must be based only on the processes we see happening today. We don't see global floods happening today, so he's ruled out the biblical account ''by decree''). On the other side of the coin, the Bible [[Creation week|''unambiguously'']] says that the entire period of time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days. The biblical problems with an "old" Earth are insurmountable. The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible.
:: In any debate, the two sides need to start with common ground. And when there is not even common ground regarding such basic things as how we came to be, then debate necessarily must start there. It does help, however, to not misrepresent the other side as "dogma" nor the debate as one between the Bible and science.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)

::: I'll start by admitting I wasn't in the best of moods when I replied, and could have kept the debate more civil, for that I'm sorry. My problem is that I feel like I'm searching for answers but only being given half truths or interpretations.
::: In the first few hundred years after a global flood, I could not begin to imagine what the environment might be like. I have no idea if I'm honest; there would most likely be a wealth of plant and insect life in some areas, and if we accept that God willed for no creatures but those on Noah's Arc to survive, there would be a distinct lack of animal life. I would imagine that it would not take many years for desert to be re-established however, owing that only very specialized plants can exist for ''any'' length of time without rainfall. I would also imagine that the environment in the years after a global catastrophe would not be a stable environment, but I wouldn't like to go beyond that.
::: "''If you've got enough of the animals around...''" Surely after Noah's flood there were only a limited number of animals, who then also had to be in adolesence, or between dependency and maturity?
::: The story I get is this; that Noah's arc has successfully traversed a global flood. The animals are then set free and set to disperse across the land as they choose. The creatures are venturing off in all directions across the Earth, to find their new homes in what is currently a brutally ravashed planet. The roos head towards the Australian continent - I would assume - by travelling the tough, mostly mountainous route through modern Pakistan and India towards South East Asia, or alternatively, assuming they are the right age, floating a great distance towards the Southern tip of India. From here they passed through Thailand and Malaysia and then set off to Indonesia - given that sea levels were much lower and assuming therefore that land was more accessable - where they had to face their first sizeable stretch of water. This they crossed with the right timing between being dependent and fully grown, and also with the right timing that they could populate this new found home without being followed by the predators who had hunted them across the rest of the world, wiping out their ancestors and therefore leaving the only remaining colony and fossil records upon a giant continent 6500 miles from their original starting place. Please excuse me if I've missed any details and allow me to add that this seems highly far-fetched to me.
::: Yes, I'm sorry for the inaccuracy of earth-age, I didn't have time to double check the figures on that. That is an interesting point about the evolution rate. It would seem it would have needed to be a "hot" period for evolution, e.g. more changes than one every 41,000 generations. If this is the general rate of evolution then it hardly seems likely for human beings to have evolved in a "short" space of time from a common ancestor. It should be noted as well though, that the bacteria in Lenski's research were not exposed to the number of environmental variations as evolving human beings would have been, and given that natural selection is based on environmental interaction, this is likely to affect the rate of evolution. There are also recent genetic theories which may make the idea more plausible, by suggesting that evolution works on codes that an organism already has embedded in it's genetic data, and that there is a method of "''unlocking''" these unused genes. I don't know the exact science behind this so it's only a theory, but obvisouly this would create the capacity for a quicker rate of visible changes in species if it was observed.
::: That was my point for the age of the earth - that there would be a more complete fossil record if the earth was only 6,000 years old, but if the earth were ≈ 4 billion years old, you would expect to find gaps in the fossil record. Radiodating may not be absolutely accurate, nor the science fool-proof, but it can safely give the conclusion that something is very old, and when coupled with other data this is usually accepted as fact. Given that, it is not true that the fossils we find, which are recorded as being older than any historical records to accompany and verify them, should be rejected as absolutely false. Besides that, there is other evidence which points to an earth older than 6,000 years - evidence of the Ancient Chinese, Mesopotamian and Ancient Mesoamerican cultures being some, and reference by Egyptian Pharaohs such as Khufu, and philosophers such as Plato and alike who speak of ancient races, thousands of years before their own [http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient.Civ_Technol/ataw102.html].
::: I understand the difference between observations in that sense. What I meant was that Darwin travelled to the very corners of the earth to sudy animals, plants, geology, fossils and the conclusion he drew was based on his observations of his environment. It is an observable hypothesis in that you can visit remote islands and see the mutations or adaptations which have occured to species there in a relatively small amount of time, and there is even a definite divergence in remote populations in the homo genus [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html]. What you have seemed to outline to me is that creationist science accepts gene mutation, but not as dramatically as ''"goo-to-man"'', so it is a matter of degree which we are debating.
::: ''"as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved..."'' You seem to have mistaken my point for an argument against the existence of God? I was using it as an argument ''for'' the existence of God; that all scientific study we do into the history of the earth and the universe is in reality a study into God's mind before the ultimate conception of human beings. The appearance of fingernails and hair etc. are not appearances of age, nor proof that God ''didn't'' create Adam, they would be - if Adam had a full head of hair and fully grown fingernails - an apparent sign that he had ''grown'' fingernails and hair, as human beings are born mostly without. The argument was an argument that seeks to bring together scientific discovery with religious belief by saying that all scientific exploration into an ancient universe is acceptable as long as we remember that we are exploring into the history of the world in the mind of God, rather than any physical reality. It was more addressed out of interest than as something I believe.
::: ''"The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible."'' Most of the original geologists, biologists and other scientists who uncovered some of the mysteries of the earth were in fact Christian. Even Darwin himself was Christian, and he did not seek in any way to disprove the Bible when he began his studies. As is the scientific way, he made his observations and drew his conclusions based upon them. I suppose it comes down to a single principle, that I believe the Bible is ''another man's interpretation'' of the word of God, given that it was written by men, and opposing that, you believe that it is the ''literal'' word of God. And we will probably never get past that. However, my belief is that scientific problems do not arise solely from someone who ''didn't believe'' the Bible. The scientific problems would arise say, from someone who had never read the Bible. If he studied the rocks of the earth, and from his data concluded everything about the earth as scientists had, and concluded it to be ≈ 4 billion years old, then, should he one day come to read the Bible, he would not accept it as being the word of God in any capacity, and definitely not literally. However, someone who read the Bible, was taught with the belief that it was the literal word of God and had maybe even had a religious experience in their life would, upon reading the first man's work, believe him to be lying or making it up. The second man may then seek to prove the first man wrong, even though the first man believes he has already proved the second man wrong. The second man may interpret things differently or find flaws in the first man's findings and then challenge his views. The first man would respond with his own data and in turn challenge the views of the second man and so on and so on, untill no resolution is found. If both men just admitted they were both partially wrong, and that neither of them could claim to know everything, then the two men together would be able to share their wealth of knowledge and even gain a new level of understanding of the universe. Or so I wish.
:::I have enjoyed this debate, even if I would have liked to establish some more common ground, and I hope I haven't offended you - through my ignorence or otherwise - because that is not my objective. In truth, I am selfishly wanting to learn but selflessly wanting to teach, and I hope you appreciate this and can show the patience you have so far. Thanks for your time.
::: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-08T17:49:08Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

==Any Suggestions==

Do I need to add anymore than that? How do you propose the flood broke up the super-continent to form the world as we know it in a year? From the miniature tectonic activities we have in our current environment causing the massive natural disasters they do, would this not have destroyed the world with mega-earthquakes and unending volcanic eruptions, changing the very chemical make-up of the atmosphere?{{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}
: You might like to have a look over the articles [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/ here]. I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects. The ''intention'' was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?). And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity ''affected'' the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
::I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enormously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastrophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)

Good point, but are you an expert in the field, or just (like Philip and myself) a well-educated layman? We need to quote authoritative sources in our articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, I'm no expert. It was just what came to my head as I read the article. If I had references etc. to cite then I might have added a sub-heading on the article about it. Maybe I'll be able to back up my words with qualifications one day, but untill then I'll just share my theories with people. Also, with the 'intention to destroy the world' part Philip, I was more refering to tectonic activity making the world completely uninhabitable for any human beings in the time suceeding the flood, rather than being part of the judgement of mankind which is embodied by the flood. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:37, 19th November 2008(EST)
::: "''If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article...''": It is not accurate to say that the article implies that. It mentions two different flood-related possibilities. First, that the break-up occurred during the time of Peleg, which would indeed mean that Pangea existed when the ark landed. In this case, your description of the consequences is likely close to correct. However, it then also says that ''most'' creationists believe that it occurred ''during'' the flood, which means that Pangea had ceased to exist at the time the ark came to rest, and therefore the consequences that you describe would not have occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::True, I had factored in something else which I should have mentioned, which is the idea of exotic animal migration - namely the kangaroo's - to places like Australia. I absolutely deny the theory which says they could have migrated there with lower sea levels as a scientific theory - it is a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's. In the article's themselves, they say that of places such as Krakatoa, that [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "it was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes, and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things."] However, the instruments whereby small animals migrate are well-known, and the limitation on specific animals which can journey by such methods is also well known. As I said this is an 'if and maybe' scenario, and provides no evidence to suggest this possible method of migration should or would transpose onto kangaroo's. The article also speaks about Kangaroo's spreading out over time, but there is no fossil evidence of any such slow-paced migration . He also states that "The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct." However, again, there is no fossil evidence of kangaroos living anywhere but Australia. The author cites rabbits who have migrated across Australia as an example of long distance migrations, however they moved with human populations, and also didn't have to cross any major bodies of water, which the kangaroo's would have had to do at some point. The author in this article also states that specialized, localized populations may have come to be out of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation."], which surely removes itself from a true creationist perspective, as it basically states the creatures [http://www.answers.com/evolution evolved] to suit their surroundings. So if we take the existence of a post-flood Pangaea as the only possible explanation of kangaroo - and other exotic creaturs - migration, then the argument can stand. As I said, mine is only a theory, but I also don't accept the science behind the migratory explanation, so I cannot accept that as a defeating criticism.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:02 20th November 2008(EST)

::::: I understand what you are saying about animal migration, but just as you describe it as a "a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's", your response is simply a bit of hand-waving to say that we know how smaller creatures did it and bigger creatures can't. But there's been plenty examples in science of unexpected discoveries. It's a big leap from "we can't imagine how it's possible" to "it couldn't have happened that way".
::::: When creationists point to gaps in the fossil record, we are told how sparse it is. Yet now I'm supposed to believe that it's complete enough to be able to dismiss an argument from a ''lack'' of evidence? If some things are totally absent from the fossil record for over a supposed 60 million years, then of what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?
::::: No, I'm pretty certain that rabbits spread across Australia by their own means, just as the cane toad is currently spreading across Australia, despite human attempts to stop it.
::::: Evolution from the first cell to the variety of creatures that we have today requires a massive ''increase'' in genetic information. That increase is not actually observed. What ''is'' observed, however, is ''decreases'' in information, but ''decreases'' are not microbes-to-man evolution. You can redefine evolution all you like, including into forms that creationists agree with (e.g. a current popular one is ''variations in gene frequency''), but the point is that it is the evolutionary "family tree", not changes in gene frequency, that creationists disagree with.
::::: I'm not sure that I get your final point. You seem to be saying that the idea of Pangea splitting up during the flood doesn't work because it doesn't explain animal migration, so you prefer the idea of Pangea splitting up ''after'' the flood, despite ''that'' idea not working because nothing would survive the split?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: You got my final point exactly friend; that I came to a paradox in my thinking, one that I couldn't solve. That's why I re-titled this page as "Any Suggestions", and they are welcome. It's positive debate as I see it. I don't see that scientific evolution has described to any complete degree the world coming to be at it is, but at present, I am looking for an explanation which I feel is right, and that - in my opinion - can only be found through observation, experience and reason.
:::::: Where you talk about my ''hand-waving'' though, I feel this is maybe a little unfair. When we speak of evolution, it is sometimes suggested that ''what is observed'' is insufficient to explain microbe to man evolution, and I can understand that point. What I am saying is that, while we have ''observed'' ways and means in which small creatures can traverse large distances, we have also observed that these means are not usable as the means of transporting larger creatures. Therefore, I see no reason to make the assumption that larger creatures could have traversed such distances, just as you see no reason to accept microbe to man evolution. I'm not trying to force an evolutionary explanation on you, but to discuss the problems I see.
:::::: "''what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?''" I think the significance for me is that there aren't as many ''recent'' gaps in fossil evidence. If a creature was supposed to have migrated from somewhere within a few thousand years of today, then it is highly probable that there would be fossil evidence to support this. I can understand the point you make again, and I have to agree to some degree that fossil evidence can in some cases be incomplete, inadequate and somewhat [http://www.trilobites.info/anohome.html misleading, as shown by the Anomalocas], although this is usually with ''older'' fossil records.
::::::The rabbits spreading of their own accord is a moot point, given that they still did not need to traverse any great body of water. I wasn't trying to redefine evolution either. I provided a dictionary definition because I felt that what he had described - in essence the specialization of creatures to their environment - was akin to what I take to be evolution. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)
This may seem odd (not sure of right word so odd will do) but some arguments about the flood suggests the involvement(interferance/intervention) of God to ensure the survival of the ark and subsequent survival of Noah etc. If you accept that premise then the diapora(?) of the animals or surviving the breakup of Pangea becomes moot. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)

: (To Entheogenicorder) Perhaps the "hand-waving" comment was a bit unnecessary, but my point was that you were simply waving away an argument with little to go on. I understand what you are saying about observations, but I guess my point was that observations in this case are very inconclusive.
: Another point that I didn't mention is that it may be that the kangaroos that arrived here did so as young roos, not fully-grown adults. Would that fit in with the size range that you are talking about that we have observed covering water stretches? Another possibility that may be unlikely but I don't think can be ruled out is that they were brought across by humans.
: As for the rabbits, I agree that they didn't have to cross large bodies of water. But you appeared to be making two distinct points there, that they move (a) with humans, and (b) not across water. I grant you the second, but I was replying to the first.
: The reference I made to fossils missing for 60 million years was actually to things that are still alive, but are missing for the ''last'' 60 million years; hence they are missing from the ''recent'' fossil record as well as the ancient one.
: My reference to "you" redefining evolution was plural: "you" meaning "evolutionists", not ''you'' specifically.
: (To Markr) Biblical evidence is that God kept the use of miracles to a minimum. Genesis specifically records that God brought the animals to Noah, but not that he assisted their distribution after.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)
:: I was not 'waving away' anything. I was commenting on an encyclopedic entry which, as such, purports to be truth, with theoretical arguments against said encyclopedic entry. My lack of concrete evidence for my argument is a moot point given the lack of scientific evidence for the content of the article itself, given that mine is a criticism of something which poses itself as a truth.
:: I don't think in all truth that young roos - or any roos - could successfully have made the journey, across land and sea, without some sort of aid, so the suggestion of human interference seems the most plausible, without being much to go on.
:: What I was referring to with the rabbits - if I must expand, despite it being a moot point - was more that their populations would thrive with human influence - the harsh outback would not be friendly to a rabbit, and there would be little food untill humans settled down and grew crops and suchlike. Given this, it is quite likely that without human influence they would not thrive as they have done. It is interesting to note the example of the Cane toad, as they have been an example of evolution in action since their introduction to a new [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html environment].
:: If we take it as true that there have been periods of history lasting 60 million years, then we also accept the changing nature of the earth, and the possibility of fossils being lost, even in the ''last'' 60 million years. Within the last ten thousand years or so is another matter, and as any archaeologist will probably testify, there are constant discoveries being made and therefore amendments to what we know or can learn from fossils.
:: I think the definition of evolution as a term, and natural selection as a theory, has changed very little since Darwin theorized the history of life. The agents which we believe natural selection to work on have changed, and as such, natural selection can be observed now on a microscopic level in genes, and this has led to changes in exactly how it is viewed. To the extent that bacteria can be viewed to evolve even in the [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html lab]. I very much resent being labelled under the terms of ''evolutionists'' without note though. Yes, it's true that I accept hard fact, and that scientific evidence has not been in any effective way refuted in this field, however, that does not mean that I deny the existence of God, nor does it necessarily mean that I absolutely reject the Bible. The most convincing argument I have ever heard for the existence of God can be put into one statement, that any act of creation must involve the creation of a being with a history that never took [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa2-cr.htm place.] Essentially, it goes that Adam was created as a full grown adult, this gives the appearance of having been a child, and a baby, with a naval or bellybutton, giving evidence of Adam having had a father before him. Given that Adam was the first person created, this appearance of history is false, but is still evident from research. This means that we can make accurate scientific or geological observations of a deep and distant past, which only in truth existed inside the mind of God. So the evolution of genes, and even speculatively the Big Bang, may be said to be the working of God's mind before we were born into physical existence.
:: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 08:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::: I don't see any reason that the Kangaroos would have trouble crossing the land. As for them crossing the water, you haven't explained why some small creatures that you say can cross water could do so but not young kangaroos.
::: As far as the rabbits in the outback are concerned, you ''may'' be right, but note that Australia built some very long fences ''in the outback'' to limit the spread of the rabbits. Yes, there probably was human activity there, but it would have been minimal. Cane toads have shown no evidence of evolution of the sort that creationists object to. What the news report is referring to is ''adaptation'' within the genetic variability of the cane toads.
::: I don't follow your point about missing fossils; it seems to be just special pleading to dismiss my objections to your earlier claim.
::: Lenski's research, even if it is genuinely new genetic information produced by chance, is actually an argument ''against'' goo-to-you evolution, as it shows extremely ''little'' evolution occurs over a large number of generations.
::: Scientific evidence may not have been refuted, but evolution is mostly philosophy and story telling, with only a small amount of scientific evidence, most of which is also compatible with creation.
::: You may not deny the existence of a god, or of parts of the Bible, but if you believe evolution, you must of necessity reject those foundational parts of the Bible that are inconsistent with it, such as the creation of the world in six days, the creation being "very good" (without fault), and death occurring only after the appearance of mankind.
::: If the argument you mention is the most convincing argument you've heard for the existence of God, then it would appear that you've heard very little on the subject. The argument is false anyway, in proposing a history for Adam. Being created as a fully-grown man only gives the appearance of him having been a child if you reject that God could create him as an adult (and that therefore the only way an adult could come about is by being a child first). As a belly button is a scar (not a design feature) of an event that never occurred, Adam would not have had one, so this "evidence" is invented. You are confusing an appearance of adulthood with an appearance of ''aging'', and the processes that go along with that. That is, Adam would have appeared as an adult, true, but without any evidence of having grown older or of a past life, such as scars, wrinkles, callouses, or the like, that would be evidence of actual events happening. A machine such as a television, fresh off the factory floor, is ''complete'', but without scratches, worn parts, etc. which come with ''aging''. Adam would have been like that. The analogy with cosmology and genetics follows: Any evidence of actual events happening indicates that those things happened; they were not fake history created by God. But similarly, evidence that is not actually of events happening, but which ''assume'' that a history was required, is not ''evidence'', but ''presumption''. For the same reason, creationists generally reject the idea that God created starlight in transit, because that starlight carries information about events happening, such as stars going nova, that would never have happened if the starlight was created in transit. But similarly, they reject claims about ages based on presumptions that things started off in particular states when it is just as valid to claim that God created them that way.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 5 December 2008 (EST)
: I see a problem in that they would have passed through many different environments in getting to Australia, so they would surely need to adapt to those environments. With regards to young roos being able to cross the water easily, we know that they spend much of their young lives depending on their mothers for protection and sustinance, so that means the journey would have had to fit nicely into the alotted time period between dependence and full-grown maturity, which is doubtful. If young roos are able to travel in the same way as other small mammals, it begs the question why they would not migrate further beyond Australia, to colonize other islands, as other small animals have done. Did they set off from the Middle East with the objective of ending up in Australia? Was it by luck that they ended up there?
: I don't necessarily believe in the evolution of Mankind - at least not the evolution of our conscious, reasoning minds - but even the slow evolution demonstrated in the lab is evidence of ''some'' evolution, no matter how little, in some creatures. Even waiting 41,000 generations - very much within the lifetime of one scientist - to see genetic mutations, is a small number of generations in terms of a 6 billion year earth-history.
: Regarding fossils, I know there isn't a perfect picture of the past 60 million year history, my point was that if you accept that the earth has had a 60 million year history, then you also have to accept dramatic geological changes as part of the earths history, and these will lead to the destruction of historical evidence. The fact that there is evidence of such an ancient history is in itself scientific evidence that the Biblical accounts of creation are incorrect or inadequate.
: Evolution is philosophy and story telling in as much as the scientific observation of ones environment can be. The genetic age has demonstrated that genes are passed from both parents down to their child, and that mutations in parental genes - such as genetic disorders - therefore appear in their children. In this, and as with the example of the cane toad and many [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878?maxtoshow=3D&HITS= more] we can see evolution to some extent at work.
: I see your argument against the appearance of a history but I don't necessarily agree. When you speak of ageing features - scars, wrinkles etcetera, this would not be the appearance of history I was referring to. It was the appearance of growth, rather than ageing - that God would have created Adam with fingernails, hair and eyesight, all traits which a human being otherwise has to grow or learn, not ones they are born with. The appearance of history exists insomuch as Adam is a functioning human being. Regarding the example you give with the television, I would say that the construction of the component parts for the television may be analogous with the construction of genetic material for human beings. Equally I would not like to make an analogy between Gods creation and mankinds creation, as that would imply the assumption of God having ''constructed'' us in a similar way to the way we construct inanimate objects. I believe if God did create us, it would be far more complex than this and could not be described wholly in any human given description. The argument I was putting forward is one which has existed for many years, and I don't think you've fully addressed to absolute nature of it, which is looked at in greater depth in the reference given.
: I did not want this to turn in to a creation - evolution argument, but that seems to be the only grounds on which I will find any sort of reasoned debate. A theological debate without jumping back to the idea that 'the Bible says this so it must be right' or that 'scientist have no evidence' seems impossible, though it would be beneficial to Christian dogma and any idea of the pursuit of truth to engage in one fully.
: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:: How many different environments between the middle east and Australia would there have been in the first few hundred years after a global flood wiped everything out? I doubt that there would be much in the way of deserts by then, for example.
:: I don't think the journey is doubtful at all on the basis that the journey would have to fit into the time between dependence and maturity. If you've got enough of the animals around, chances are ''some'' will be at just the right stage to make the water-crossing part of the journey.
:: Once you've got to Australia, there's not much place left to go that is not across larger stretches of water. No, they would not have targetted Australia. Rather, what's likely is that the sea levels rose (at the end of the [[ice age]]) and cut off or increased the gap from the mainland after the marsupials reached Australia and before large carnivorous animals reached Australia. When spreading out from the middle east after the flood, the carnivorous animals are not going to lead the way; they are going to follow the vegetarians. The vegetarians would lead. Everywhere but Australia the carnivores eventually caught up and wiped them out, but the ones that reached Australia became isolated so survived.
:: 41,000 generations might seem a small number in terms of a six billion year earth history, but (a) Earth's history is only supposed to be 4.5 billion years; (b) life on Earth is only supposed to be around 3.5 billion years old, (c) humans are supposed to have evolved around, say one million years ago, from a common ancestor with the apes around, say, six million years ago. This means that humans evolved from that common ancestor in around 200,000 generations. With one mutation per 41,000 generations, that allows for about ''five'' mutations! But it's worse than that. With sexual reproduction, there's only a 50% chance of any mutation being passed on, so you'd only get to keep two or three of those five! ''That'' is why Lenski's research is so bad for the evolutionary hypothesis (one reason anyway).
:: Okay, I ''think'' that I understand your argument about the fossil record. Is this it? If the Earth has a 60-million year history, it would have lots of gaps in the fossil record. But if it has a 6,000 year-history, the fossil record would be pretty complete. Is that it? If so, the problem is that if the Earth has a 6,000-year history, the vast majority of the fossil record comes from the one year of the flood around 4,500 years ago, and comparatively very little since. So under ''either'' scenario, the "recent" fossil record is very incomplete. As for the "fact" of evidence of an ancient history, I reject that there is any such "fact". Dates are based on the belief and on assumptions, not directly on measurements (see [[radiometric dating]]).
:: Evolution is not philosophy and story telling like scientific ''observation'' is, because molecules-to-man evolution is ''not'' observed! If I propose that water boils at 120 degrees Celsius, you can test that claim for yourself, and ''observe'' the results. If you propose that 100 million years ago dinosaurs turned into birds, what test can I do to see if your claim is correct? Testing the boiling point of water is science. Claiming that dinosaurs turned into birds is story-telling. Genetic changes that don't add new genetic information—such as wings on cane toads (or even something less dramatic but still something ''new'')—is not molecules-to-man evolution, but merely variation within the created kind.
:: Your reference to fingernails, hair, and eyesight is a distinction without substance. There is no reason for God not to have created man with these features, so, as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved. Unlike scars, etc., fingernails, hair, and eyesight are ''design features'', not the products of wear and tear, and for that matter, are present from conception in the form of genetic information.
:: I did miss reading your reference about different views on apparent age. It is a reasonable summary of the different positions as far as it goes, but doesn't really get into the problems with each view very much. It lists the "theological questions" as being non-existent for the (misnamed) "Ham" view, but not for your view; although it only discusses what these problems are in the briefest possible way. It says that the "Ham" view has the most "scientific challenges", but accepts ''a priori'' that those "challenges" really are ''scientific'', which the "Ham" view rejects (i.e. it takes sides). "Conventional" geology ''starts'' by rejecting the biblical account (Hutton said that geology must be based only on the processes we see happening today. We don't see global floods happening today, so he's ruled out the biblical account ''by decree''). On the other side of the coin, the Bible [[Creation week|''unambiguously'']] says that the entire period of time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days. The biblical problems with an "old" Earth are insurmountable. The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible.
:: In any debate, the two sides need to start with common ground. And when there is not even common ground regarding such basic things as how we came to be, then debate necessarily must start there. It does help, however, to not misrepresent the other side as "dogma" nor the debate as one between the Bible and science.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)

::: I'll start by admitting I wasn't in the best of moods when I replied, and could have kept the debate more civil, for that I'm sorry. My problem is that I feel like I'm searching for answers but only being given half truths or interpretations.
::: In the first few hundred years after a global flood, I could not begin to imagine what the environment might be like. I have no idea if I'm honest; there would most likely be a wealth of plant and insect life in some areas, and if we accept that God willed for no creatures but those on Noah's Arc to survive, there would be a distinct lack of animal life. I would imagine that it would not take many years for desert to be re-established however, owing that only very specialized plants can exist for ''any'' length of time without rainfall. I would also imagine that the environment in the years after a global catastrophe would not be a stable environment, but I wouldn't like to go beyond that.
::: "''If you've got enough of the animals around...''" Surely after "Noah's" flood there were only a limited number of animals, who then also had to be in adolesence, or between dependency and maturity?
::: The story I get is this; that Noah's arc has successfully traversed a global flood. The animals are then set free and set to disperse across the land as they choose. The creatures are venturing off in all directions across the Earth, to find their new homes in what is currently a brutally ravashed planet. The roos head towards the Australian continent - I would assume - by travelling the tough, mostly mountainous route through modern Pakistan and India towards South East Asia, or alternatively, assuming they are the right age, floating a great distance towards the Southern tip of India. From here they passed through Thailand and Malaysia and then set off to Indonesia - given that sea levels were much lower and assuming therefore that land was more accessable - where they had to face their first sizeable stretch of water. This they crossed with the right timing between being dependent and fully grown, and also with the right timing that they could populate this new found home without being followed by the predators who had hunted them across the rest of the world, wiping out their ancestors and therefore leaving the only remaining colony and fossil records upon a giant continent 6500 miles from their original starting place. Please excuse me if I've missed any details and allow me to add that this seems highly far-fetched to me.
::: Yes, I'm sorry for the inaccuracy of earth-age, I didn't have time to double check the figures on that. That is an interesting point about the evolution rate. It would seem it would have needed to be a "hot" period for evolution, e.g. more changes than one every 41,000 generations. If this is the general rate of evolution then it hardly seems likely for human beings to have evolved in a "short" space of time from a common ancestor. It should be noted as well though, that the bacteria in Lenski's research were not exposed to the number of environmental variations as evolving human beings would have been, and given that natural selection is based on environmental interaction, this is likely to affect the rate of evolution. There are also recent genetic theories which may make the idea more plausible, by suggesting that evolution works on codes that an organism already has embedded in it's genetic data, and that there is a method of "''unlocking''" these unused genes. I don't know the exact science behind this so it's only a theory, but obvisouly this would create the capacity for a quicker rate of visible changes in species if it was observed.
::: That was my point for the age of the earth - that there would be a more complete fossil record if the earth was only 6,000 years old, but if the earth were ≈ 4 billion years old, you would expect to find gaps in the fossil record. Radiodating may not be absolutely accurate, nor the science fool-proof, but it can safely give the conclusion that something is very old, and when coupled with other data this is usually accepted as fact. Given that, it is not true that the fossils we find, which are recorded as being older than any historical records to accompany and verify them, should be rejected as absolutely false. Besides that, there is other evidence which points to an earth older than 6,000 years - evidence of the Ancient Chinese, Mesopotamian and Ancient Mesoamerican cultures being some, and reference by Egyptian Pharaohs such as Khufu, and philosophers such as Plato and alike who speak of ancient races, thousands of years before their own [http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient.Civ_Technol/ataw102.html].
::: I understand the difference between observations in that sense. What I meant was that Darwin travelled to the very corners of the earth to sudy animals, plants, geology, fossils and the conclusion he drew was based on his observations of his environment. It is an observable hypothesis in that you can visit remote islands and see the mutations or adaptations which have occured to species there in a relatively small amount of time, and there is even a definite divergence in remote populations in the homo genus [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html]. What you have seemed to outline to me is that creationist science accepts gene mutation, but not as dramatically as ''"goo-to-man"'', so it is a matter of degree which we are debating.
::: ''"as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved..."'' You seem to have mistaken my point for an argument against the existence of God? I was using it as an argument ''for'' the existence of God; that all scientific study we do into the history of the earth and the universe is in reality a study into God's mind before the ultimate conception of human beings. The appearance of fingernails and hair etc. are not appearances of age, nor proof that God ''didn't'' create Adam, they would be - if Adam had a full head of hair and fully grown fingernails - an apparent sign that he had ''grown'' fingernails and hair, as human beings are born mostly without. The argument was an argument that seeks to bring together scientific discovery with religious belief by saying that all scientific exploration into an ancient universe is acceptable as long as we remember that we are exploring into the history of the world in the mind of God, rather than any physical reality. It was more addressed out of interest than as something I believe.
::: ''"The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible."'' Most of the original geologists, biologists and other scientists who uncovered some of the mysteries of the earth were in fact Christian. Even Darwin himself was Christian, and he did not seek in any way to disprove the Bible when he began his studies. As is the scientific way, he made his observations and drew his conclusions based upon them. I suppose it comes down to a single principle, that I believe the Bible is ''another man's interpretation'' of the word of God, given that it was written by men, and opposing that, you believe that it is the ''literal'' word of God. And we will probably never get past that. However, my belief is that scientific problems do not arise solely from someone who ''didn't believe'' the Bible. The scientific problems would arise say, from someone who had never read the Bible. If he studied the rocks of the earth, and from his data concluded everything about the earth as scientists had, and concluded it to be ≈ 4 billion years old, then, should he one day come to read the Bible, he would not accept it as being the word of God in any capacity, and definitely not literally. However, someone who read the Bible, was taught with the belief that it was the literal word of God and had maybe even had a religious experience in their life would, upon reading the first man's work, believe him to be lying or making it up. The second man may then seek to prove the first man wrong, even though the first man believes he has already proved the second man wrong. The second man may interpret things differently or find flaws in the first man's findings and then challenge his views. The first man would respond with his own data and in turn challenge the views of the second man and so on and so on, untill no resolution is found. If both men just admitted they were both partially wrong, and that neither of them could claim to know everything, then the two men together would be able to share their wealth of knowledge and even gain a new level of understanding of the universe. Or so I wish.
:::I have enjoyed this debate, even if I would have liked to establish some more common ground, and I hope I haven't offended you - through my ignorence or otherwise - because that is not my objective. In truth, I am selfishly wanting to learn but selflessly wanting to teach, and I hope you appreciate this and can show the patience you have so far. Thanks for your time.
::: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-08T17:47:13Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

==Any Suggestions==

Do I need to add anymore than that? How do you propose the flood broke up the super-continent to form the world as we know it in a year? From the miniature tectonic activities we have in our current environment causing the massive natural disasters they do, would this not have destroyed the world with mega-earthquakes and unending volcanic eruptions, changing the very chemical make-up of the atmosphere?{{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}
: You might like to have a look over the articles [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/ here]. I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects. The ''intention'' was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?). And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity ''affected'' the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
::I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enormously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastrophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)

Good point, but are you an expert in the field, or just (like Philip and myself) a well-educated layman? We need to quote authoritative sources in our articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, I'm no expert. It was just what came to my head as I read the article. If I had references etc. to cite then I might have added a sub-heading on the article about it. Maybe I'll be able to back up my words with qualifications one day, but untill then I'll just share my theories with people. Also, with the 'intention to destroy the world' part Philip, I was more refering to tectonic activity making the world completely uninhabitable for any human beings in the time suceeding the flood, rather than being part of the judgement of mankind which is embodied by the flood. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:37, 19th November 2008(EST)
::: "''If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article...''": It is not accurate to say that the article implies that. It mentions two different flood-related possibilities. First, that the break-up occurred during the time of Peleg, which would indeed mean that Pangea existed when the ark landed. In this case, your description of the consequences is likely close to correct. However, it then also says that ''most'' creationists believe that it occurred ''during'' the flood, which means that Pangea had ceased to exist at the time the ark came to rest, and therefore the consequences that you describe would not have occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::True, I had factored in something else which I should have mentioned, which is the idea of exotic animal migration - namely the kangaroo's - to places like Australia. I absolutely deny the theory which says they could have migrated there with lower sea levels as a scientific theory - it is a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's. In the article's themselves, they say that of places such as Krakatoa, that [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "it was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes, and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things."] However, the instruments whereby small animals migrate are well-known, and the limitation on specific animals which can journey by such methods is also well known. As I said this is an 'if and maybe' scenario, and provides no evidence to suggest this possible method of migration should or would transpose onto kangaroo's. The article also speaks about Kangaroo's spreading out over time, but there is no fossil evidence of any such slow-paced migration . He also states that "The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct." However, again, there is no fossil evidence of kangaroos living anywhere but Australia. The author cites rabbits who have migrated across Australia as an example of long distance migrations, however they moved with human populations, and also didn't have to cross any major bodies of water, which the kangaroo's would have had to do at some point. The author in this article also states that specialized, localized populations may have come to be out of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation."], which surely removes itself from a true creationist perspective, as it basically states the creatures [http://www.answers.com/evolution evolved] to suit their surroundings. So if we take the existence of a post-flood Pangaea as the only possible explanation of kangaroo - and other exotic creaturs - migration, then the argument can stand. As I said, mine is only a theory, but I also don't accept the science behind the migratory explanation, so I cannot accept that as a defeating criticism.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:02 20th November 2008(EST)

::::: I understand what you are saying about animal migration, but just as you describe it as a "a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's", your response is simply a bit of hand-waving to say that we know how smaller creatures did it and bigger creatures can't. But there's been plenty examples in science of unexpected discoveries. It's a big leap from "we can't imagine how it's possible" to "it couldn't have happened that way".
::::: When creationists point to gaps in the fossil record, we are told how sparse it is. Yet now I'm supposed to believe that it's complete enough to be able to dismiss an argument from a ''lack'' of evidence? If some things are totally absent from the fossil record for over a supposed 60 million years, then of what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?
::::: No, I'm pretty certain that rabbits spread across Australia by their own means, just as the cane toad is currently spreading across Australia, despite human attempts to stop it.
::::: Evolution from the first cell to the variety of creatures that we have today requires a massive ''increase'' in genetic information. That increase is not actually observed. What ''is'' observed, however, is ''decreases'' in information, but ''decreases'' are not microbes-to-man evolution. You can redefine evolution all you like, including into forms that creationists agree with (e.g. a current popular one is ''variations in gene frequency''), but the point is that it is the evolutionary "family tree", not changes in gene frequency, that creationists disagree with.
::::: I'm not sure that I get your final point. You seem to be saying that the idea of Pangea splitting up during the flood doesn't work because it doesn't explain animal migration, so you prefer the idea of Pangea splitting up ''after'' the flood, despite ''that'' idea not working because nothing would survive the split?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: You got my final point exactly friend; that I came to a paradox in my thinking, one that I couldn't solve. That's why I re-titled this page as "Any Suggestions", and they are welcome. It's positive debate as I see it. I don't see that scientific evolution has described to any complete degree the world coming to be at it is, but at present, I am looking for an explanation which I feel is right, and that - in my opinion - can only be found through observation, experience and reason.
:::::: Where you talk about my ''hand-waving'' though, I feel this is maybe a little unfair. When we speak of evolution, it is sometimes suggested that ''what is observed'' is insufficient to explain microbe to man evolution, and I can understand that point. What I am saying is that, while we have ''observed'' ways and means in which small creatures can traverse large distances, we have also observed that these means are not usable as the means of transporting larger creatures. Therefore, I see no reason to make the assumption that larger creatures could have traversed such distances, just as you see no reason to accept microbe to man evolution. I'm not trying to force an evolutionary explanation on you, but to discuss the problems I see.
:::::: "''what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?''" I think the significance for me is that there aren't as many ''recent'' gaps in fossil evidence. If a creature was supposed to have migrated from somewhere within a few thousand years of today, then it is highly probable that there would be fossil evidence to support this. I can understand the point you make again, and I have to agree to some degree that fossil evidence can in some cases be incomplete, inadequate and somewhat [http://www.trilobites.info/anohome.html misleading, as shown by the Anomalocas], although this is usually with ''older'' fossil records.
::::::The rabbits spreading of their own accord is a moot point, given that they still did not need to traverse any great body of water. I wasn't trying to redefine evolution either. I provided a dictionary definition because I felt that what he had described - in essence the specialization of creatures to their environment - was akin to what I take to be evolution. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)
This may seem odd (not sure of right word so odd will do) but some arguments about the flood suggests the involvement(interferance/intervention) of God to ensure the survival of the ark and subsequent survival of Noah etc. If you accept that premise then the diapora(?) of the animals or surviving the breakup of Pangea becomes moot. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)

: (To Entheogenicorder) Perhaps the "hand-waving" comment was a bit unnecessary, but my point was that you were simply waving away an argument with little to go on. I understand what you are saying about observations, but I guess my point was that observations in this case are very inconclusive.
: Another point that I didn't mention is that it may be that the kangaroos that arrived here did so as young roos, not fully-grown adults. Would that fit in with the size range that you are talking about that we have observed covering water stretches? Another possibility that may be unlikely but I don't think can be ruled out is that they were brought across by humans.
: As for the rabbits, I agree that they didn't have to cross large bodies of water. But you appeared to be making two distinct points there, that they move (a) with humans, and (b) not across water. I grant you the second, but I was replying to the first.
: The reference I made to fossils missing for 60 million years was actually to things that are still alive, but are missing for the ''last'' 60 million years; hence they are missing from the ''recent'' fossil record as well as the ancient one.
: My reference to "you" redefining evolution was plural: "you" meaning "evolutionists", not ''you'' specifically.
: (To Markr) Biblical evidence is that God kept the use of miracles to a minimum. Genesis specifically records that God brought the animals to Noah, but not that he assisted their distribution after.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)
:: I was not 'waving away' anything. I was commenting on an encyclopedic entry which, as such, purports to be truth, with theoretical arguments against said encyclopedic entry. My lack of concrete evidence for my argument is a moot point given the lack of scientific evidence for the content of the article itself, given that mine is a criticism of something which poses itself as a truth.
:: I don't think in all truth that young roos - or any roos - could successfully have made the journey, across land and sea, without some sort of aid, so the suggestion of human interference seems the most plausible, without being much to go on.
:: What I was referring to with the rabbits - if I must expand, despite it being a moot point - was more that their populations would thrive with human influence - the harsh outback would not be friendly to a rabbit, and there would be little food untill humans settled down and grew crops and suchlike. Given this, it is quite likely that without human influence they would not thrive as they have done. It is interesting to note the example of the Cane toad, as they have been an example of evolution in action since their introduction to a new [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html environment].
:: If we take it as true that there have been periods of history lasting 60 million years, then we also accept the changing nature of the earth, and the possibility of fossils being lost, even in the ''last'' 60 million years. Within the last ten thousand years or so is another matter, and as any archaeologist will probably testify, there are constant discoveries being made and therefore amendments to what we know or can learn from fossils.
:: I think the definition of evolution as a term, and natural selection as a theory, has changed very little since Darwin theorized the history of life. The agents which we believe natural selection to work on have changed, and as such, natural selection can be observed now on a microscopic level in genes, and this has led to changes in exactly how it is viewed. To the extent that bacteria can be viewed to evolve even in the [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html lab]. I very much resent being labelled under the terms of ''evolutionists'' without note though. Yes, it's true that I accept hard fact, and that scientific evidence has not been in any effective way refuted in this field, however, that does not mean that I deny the existence of God, nor does it necessarily mean that I absolutely reject the Bible. The most convincing argument I have ever heard for the existence of God can be put into one statement, that any act of creation must involve the creation of a being with a history that never took [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa2-cr.htm place.] Essentially, it goes that Adam was created as a full grown adult, this gives the appearance of having been a child, and a baby, with a naval or bellybutton, giving evidence of Adam having had a father before him. Given that Adam was the first person created, this appearance of history is false, but is still evident from research. This means that we can make accurate scientific or geological observations of a deep and distant past, which only in truth existed inside the mind of God. So the evolution of genes, and even speculatively the Big Bang, may be said to be the working of God's mind before we were born into physical existence.
:: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 08:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::: I don't see any reason that the Kangaroos would have trouble crossing the land. As for them crossing the water, you haven't explained why some small creatures that you say can cross water could do so but not young kangaroos.
::: As far as the rabbits in the outback are concerned, you ''may'' be right, but note that Australia built some very long fences ''in the outback'' to limit the spread of the rabbits. Yes, there probably was human activity there, but it would have been minimal. Cane toads have shown no evidence of evolution of the sort that creationists object to. What the news report is referring to is ''adaptation'' within the genetic variability of the cane toads.
::: I don't follow your point about missing fossils; it seems to be just special pleading to dismiss my objections to your earlier claim.
::: Lenski's research, even if it is genuinely new genetic information produced by chance, is actually an argument ''against'' goo-to-you evolution, as it shows extremely ''little'' evolution occurs over a large number of generations.
::: Scientific evidence may not have been refuted, but evolution is mostly philosophy and story telling, with only a small amount of scientific evidence, most of which is also compatible with creation.
::: You may not deny the existence of a god, or of parts of the Bible, but if you believe evolution, you must of necessity reject those foundational parts of the Bible that are inconsistent with it, such as the creation of the world in six days, the creation being "very good" (without fault), and death occurring only after the appearance of mankind.
::: If the argument you mention is the most convincing argument you've heard for the existence of God, then it would appear that you've heard very little on the subject. The argument is false anyway, in proposing a history for Adam. Being created as a fully-grown man only gives the appearance of him having been a child if you reject that God could create him as an adult (and that therefore the only way an adult could come about is by being a child first). As a belly button is a scar (not a design feature) of an event that never occurred, Adam would not have had one, so this "evidence" is invented. You are confusing an appearance of adulthood with an appearance of ''aging'', and the processes that go along with that. That is, Adam would have appeared as an adult, true, but without any evidence of having grown older or of a past life, such as scars, wrinkles, callouses, or the like, that would be evidence of actual events happening. A machine such as a television, fresh off the factory floor, is ''complete'', but without scratches, worn parts, etc. which come with ''aging''. Adam would have been like that. The analogy with cosmology and genetics follows: Any evidence of actual events happening indicates that those things happened; they were not fake history created by God. But similarly, evidence that is not actually of events happening, but which ''assume'' that a history was required, is not ''evidence'', but ''presumption''. For the same reason, creationists generally reject the idea that God created starlight in transit, because that starlight carries information about events happening, such as stars going nova, that would never have happened if the starlight was created in transit. But similarly, they reject claims about ages based on presumptions that things started off in particular states when it is just as valid to claim that God created them that way.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 5 December 2008 (EST)
: I see a problem in that they would have passed through many different environments in getting to Australia, so they would surely need to adapt to those environments. With regards to young roos being able to cross the water easily, we know that they spend much of their young lives depending on their mothers for protection and sustinance, so that means the journey would have had to fit nicely into the alotted time period between dependence and full-grown maturity, which is doubtful. If young roos are able to travel in the same way as other small mammals, it begs the question why they would not migrate further beyond Australia, to colonize other islands, as other small animals have done. Did they set off from the Middle East with the objective of ending up in Australia? Was it by luck that they ended up there?
: I don't necessarily believe in the evolution of Mankind - at least not the evolution of our conscious, reasoning minds - but even the slow evolution demonstrated in the lab is evidence of ''some'' evolution, no matter how little, in some creatures. Even waiting 41,000 generations - very much within the lifetime of one scientist - to see genetic mutations, is a small number of generations in terms of a 6 billion year earth-history.
: Regarding fossils, I know there isn't a perfect picture of the past 60 million year history, my point was that if you accept that the earth has had a 60 million year history, then you also have to accept dramatic geological changes as part of the earths history, and these will lead to the destruction of historical evidence. The fact that there is evidence of such an ancient history is in itself scientific evidence that the Biblical accounts of creation are incorrect or inadequate.
: Evolution is philosophy and story telling in as much as the scientific observation of ones environment can be. The genetic age has demonstrated that genes are passed from both parents down to their child, and that mutations in parental genes - such as genetic disorders - therefore appear in their children. In this, and as with the example of the cane toad and many [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878?maxtoshow=3D&HITS= more] we can see evolution to some extent at work.
: I see your argument against the appearance of a history but I don't necessarily agree. When you speak of ageing features - scars, wrinkles etcetera, this would not be the appearance of history I was referring to. It was the appearance of growth, rather than ageing - that God would have created Adam with fingernails, hair and eyesight, all traits which a human being otherwise has to grow or learn, not ones they are born with. The appearance of history exists insomuch as Adam is a functioning human being. Regarding the example you give with the television, I would say that the construction of the component parts for the television may be analogous with the construction of genetic material for human beings. Equally I would not like to make an analogy between Gods creation and mankinds creation, as that would imply the assumption of God having ''constructed'' us in a similar way to the way we construct inanimate objects. I believe if God did create us, it would be far more complex than this and could not be described wholly in any human given description. The argument I was putting forward is one which has existed for many years, and I don't think you've fully addressed to absolute nature of it, which is looked at in greater depth in the reference given.
: I did not want this to turn in to a creation - evolution argument, but that seems to be the only grounds on which I will find any sort of reasoned debate. A theological debate without jumping back to the idea that 'the Bible says this so it must be right' or that 'scientist have no evidence' seems impossible, though it would be beneficial to Christian dogma and any idea of the pursuit of truth to engage in one fully.
: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:: How many different environments between the middle east and Australia would there have been in the first few hundred years after a global flood wiped everything out? I doubt that there would be much in the way of deserts by then, for example.
:: I don't think the journey is doubtful at all on the basis that the journey would have to fit into the time between dependence and maturity. If you've got enough of the animals around, chances are ''some'' will be at just the right stage to make the water-crossing part of the journey.
:: Once you've got to Australia, there's not much place left to go that is not across larger stretches of water. No, they would not have targetted Australia. Rather, what's likely is that the sea levels rose (at the end of the [[ice age]]) and cut off or increased the gap from the mainland after the marsupials reached Australia and before large carnivorous animals reached Australia. When spreading out from the middle east after the flood, the carnivorous animals are not going to lead the way; they are going to follow the vegetarians. The vegetarians would lead. Everywhere but Australia the carnivores eventually caught up and wiped them out, but the ones that reached Australia became isolated so survived.
:: 41,000 generations might seem a small number in terms of a six billion year earth history, but (a) Earth's history is only supposed to be 4.5 billion years; (b) life on Earth is only supposed to be around 3.5 billion years old, (c) humans are supposed to have evolved around, say one million years ago, from a common ancestor with the apes around, say, six million years ago. This means that humans evolved from that common ancestor in around 200,000 generations. With one mutation per 41,000 generations, that allows for about ''five'' mutations! But it's worse than that. With sexual reproduction, there's only a 50% chance of any mutation being passed on, so you'd only get to keep two or three of those five! ''That'' is why Lenski's research is so bad for the evolutionary hypothesis (one reason anyway).
:: Okay, I ''think'' that I understand your argument about the fossil record. Is this it? If the Earth has a 60-million year history, it would have lots of gaps in the fossil record. But if it has a 6,000 year-history, the fossil record would be pretty complete. Is that it? If so, the problem is that if the Earth has a 6,000-year history, the vast majority of the fossil record comes from the one year of the flood around 4,500 years ago, and comparatively very little since. So under ''either'' scenario, the "recent" fossil record is very incomplete. As for the "fact" of evidence of an ancient history, I reject that there is any such "fact". Dates are based on the belief and on assumptions, not directly on measurements (see [[radiometric dating]]).
:: Evolution is not philosophy and story telling like scientific ''observation'' is, because molecules-to-man evolution is ''not'' observed! If I propose that water boils at 120 degrees Celsius, you can test that claim for yourself, and ''observe'' the results. If you propose that 100 million years ago dinosaurs turned into birds, what test can I do to see if your claim is correct? Testing the boiling point of water is science. Claiming that dinosaurs turned into birds is story-telling. Genetic changes that don't add new genetic information—such as wings on cane toads (or even something less dramatic but still something ''new'')—is not molecules-to-man evolution, but merely variation within the created kind.
:: Your reference to fingernails, hair, and eyesight is a distinction without substance. There is no reason for God not to have created man with these features, so, as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved. Unlike scars, etc., fingernails, hair, and eyesight are ''design features'', not the products of wear and tear, and for that matter, are present from conception in the form of genetic information.
:: I did miss reading your reference about different views on apparent age. It is a reasonable summary of the different positions as far as it goes, but doesn't really get into the problems with each view very much. It lists the "theological questions" as being non-existent for the (misnamed) "Ham" view, but not for your view; although it only discusses what these problems are in the briefest possible way. It says that the "Ham" view has the most "scientific challenges", but accepts ''a priori'' that those "challenges" really are ''scientific'', which the "Ham" view rejects (i.e. it takes sides). "Conventional" geology ''starts'' by rejecting the biblical account (Hutton said that geology must be based only on the processes we see happening today. We don't see global floods happening today, so he's ruled out the biblical account ''by decree''). On the other side of the coin, the Bible [[Creation week|''unambiguously'']] says that the entire period of time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days. The biblical problems with an "old" Earth are insurmountable. The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible.
:: In any debate, the two sides need to start with common ground. And when there is not even common ground regarding such basic things as how we came to be, then debate necessarily must start there. It does help, however, to not misrepresent the other side as "dogma" nor the debate as one between the Bible and science.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)

::: I'll start by admitting I wasn't in the best of moods when I replied, and could have kept the debate more civil, for that I'm sorry. My problem is that I feel like I'm searching for answers but only being given half truths or interpretations.
::: In the first few hundred years after a global flood, I could not begin to imagine what the environment might be like. I have no idea if I'm honest; there would most likely be a wealth of plant and insect life in some areas, and if we accept that God willed for no creatures but those on Noah's Arc to survive, there would be a distinct lack of animal life. I would imagine that it would not take many years for desert to be re-established however, owing that only very specialized plants can exist for ''any'' length of time without rainfall. I would also imagine that the environment in the years after a global catastrophe would not be a stable environment, but I wouldn't
like to go beyond that.
::: "''If you've got enough of the animals around...''" Surely after "Noah's" flood there were only a limited number of animals, who then also had to be in adolesence, or between dependency and maturity?
::: The story I get is this; that Noah's arc has successfully traversed a global flood. The animals are then set free and set to disperse across the land as they choose. The creatures are venturing off in all directions across the Earth, to find their new homes in what is currently a brutally ravashed planet. The roos head towards the Australian continent - I would assume - by travelling the tough, mostly mountainous route through modern Pakistan and India towards South East Asia, or alternatively, assuming they
are the right age, floating a great distance towards the Southern tip of India. From here they passed through Thailand and Malaysia and then set off to Indonesia - given that sea levels were much lower and assuming therefore that land was more accessable - where they had to face their first sizeable stretch of water. This they crossed with the right timing between being dependent and fully grown, and also with the right timing that they could populate this new found home without being followed by the predators who had hunted them across the rest of the world, wiping out their ancestors and therefore leaving the only remaining colony and fossil records upon a giant continent 6500 miles from their original starting place. Please excuse me if I've missed any details and allow me to add that this seems highly far-fetched to me.
::: Yes, I'm sorry for the inaccuracy of earth-age, I didn't have time to double check the figures on that. That is an interesting point about the evolution rate. It would seem it would have needed to be a "hot" period for evolution, e.g. more changes than one every 41,000 generations. If this is the general rate of evolution then it hardly seems likely for human beings to have evolved in a "short" space of time from a common ancestor. It should be noted as well though, that the bacteria in Lenski's research were not exposed to the number of environmental variations as evolving human beings would have been, and given that natural selection is based on environmental
interaction, this is likely to affect the rate of evolution. There are also recent genetic theories which may make the idea more plausible, by suggesting that evolution works on codes that an organism already has embedded in it's genetic data, and that there is a method of "''unlocking''" these unused genes. I don't know the exact science behind this so it's only a theory, but obvisouly this would create the capacity for a quicker rate of visible changes in species if it was observed.
::: That was my point for the age of the earth - that there would be a more complete fossil record if the earth was only 6,000 years old, but if the earth were ≈ 4 billion years old, you would expect to find gaps in the fossil record. Radiodating may not be absolutely accurate, nor the science fool-proof, but it can safely give the conclusion that something is very old, and when coupled with other data this is usually accepted as fact. Given that, it is not true that the fossils we find, which are recorded as
being older than any historical records to accompany and verify them, should be rejected as absolutely false. Besides that, there is other evidence which points to an earth older than 6,000 years - evidence of the Ancient Chinese, Mesopotamian and Ancient Mesoamerican cultures being some, and reference by Egyptian Pharaohs such as Khufu, and philosophers such as Plato and alike who speak of ancient races, thousands of years before their own [http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient.Civ_Technol/ataw102.html].
::: I understand the difference between observations in that sense. What I meant was that Darwin travelled to the very corners of the earth to sudy animals, plants, geology, fossils and the conclusion he drew was based on his observations of his environment. It is an observable hypothesis in that you can visit remote islands and see the mutations or adaptations which have occured to species there in a relatively small amount of time, and there is even a definite divergence in remote populations in the homo genus
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html]. What you have seemed to outline to me is that creationist science accepts gene mutation, but not as dramatically as ''"goo-to-man"'', so it is a matter of degree which we are debating.
::: ''"as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved..."'' You seem to have mistaken my point for an argument against the existence of God? I was using it as an argument ''for'' the existence of God; that all scientific study we do into the history of the earth and the universe is in reality a study into God's mind before the ultimate conception of human beings. The appearance of fingernails and hair etc. are not appearances of age, nor proof that God
''didn't'' create Adam, they would be - if Adam had a full head of hair and fully grown fingernails - an apparent sign that he had ''grown'' fingernails and hair, as human beings are born mostly without. The argument was an argument that seeks to bring together scientific discovery with religious belief by saying that all scientific exploration into an ancient universe is acceptable as long as we remember that we are exploring into the history of the world in the mind of God, rather than any physical reality. It was more addressed out of interest than as something I believe.
::: ''"The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible."'' Most of the original geologists, biologists and other scientists who uncovered some of the mysteries of the earth were in fact Christian. Even Darwin himself was Christian, and he did not seek in any way to disprove the Bible when he began his studies. As is the scientific way, he made his observations and drew his conclusions based upon them. I suppose it comes down to a single principle, that I believe the Bible is ''another man's interpretation'' of the word of God, given that it was written by men, and opposing that, you believe that it is the ''literal'' word of God. And we will probably never get past that. However, my belief is that scientific problems do not arise solely from someone who ''didn't believe'' the Bible. The scientific problems would arise say, from someone who had never read the Bible. If he studied the rocks of the earth, and from his data concluded everything about the earth as scientists had, and concluded it to be ≈ 4 billion years old, then, should he one day come to read the Bible, he would not accept it as being the word of God in any capacity, and definitely not literally. However, someone who read the Bible, was taught with the belief that it was the literal word of God and had maybe even had a religious experience in their life would, upon reading the first man's work, believe him to be lying or making it up. The second man may then seek to prove the first man wrong, even though the first man believes he has already proved the second man wrong. The second man may interpret things differently or find flaws in the first man's findings and then challenge his views. The first man would respond with his own data and in turn challenge the views of the second man and so on and so on, untill no resolution is found. If both men just admitted they were both partially wrong, and that neither of them could claim to know everything, then the two men together would be able to share their wealth of knowledge and even gain a new level of understanding of the universe. Or so I wish.
:::I have enjoyed this debate, even if I would have liked to establish some more common ground, and I hope I haven't offended you - through my ignorence or otherwise - because that is not my objective. In truth, I am selfishly wanting to learn but selflessly wanting to teach, and I hope you appreciate this and can show the patience you have so far. Thanks for your time.
::: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Tiwanaku

2008-12-05T17:00:04Z

Entheogenicorder:

'''Tiwanaku''', also '''Tiahuanaco''' was the name of both the capital city and the empire that ruled in modern day [[Bolivia]] from 375 to 1000 A.D. It was centered near Lake Titicaca.

It has been speculated that the city could in fact be much older than originally presumed, as it was once a port town, sitting on the banks of Lake Titicaca, some 15 miles away. It is one of the best sites for pre-Columbian South American art, and many of the fine stone carvings and much of the masonry is of a higher quality than the Inca's or other South American civilizations which existed ofter the Tiwanaku. Arthur Broznansky, who did approximately fifty year study of the ruins of Tiahuanaco, speculated that the city was as much as 17,000 years old, and that it had existed in the time of the great [http://www.crystalinks.com/tiahuanaco.html flood]<ref>http://www.crystalinks.com/preinca2.html</ref><ref>http://www.thule.org/tiahuanaco.html</ref><ref>http://www.destination360.com/south-america/bolivia/tiahuanaco-tours.php</ref>.

== Sources ==

The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History, Bulliet et al, 2005.

[[Category: Central American History]]

Nazca Lines

2008-12-05T16:52:55Z

Entheogenicorder:

The Nazca Lines are mysterious images stretching across the Nazca Plains in Peru. They are an enigma, intriguing archaeologists and alike as to their origin and purpose. No one has any proof as to who built them or why. They are thought by many to have been created between 200BC and 600AD, by the Nazca civilization, and used for rituals relating to astronomy. Intriguingly however, they are only really observed as the images they portray from above.

Nazca Lines

2008-12-05T16:52:11Z

Entheogenicorder:

The Nazca Lines are mysterious images stretching across the Nazca Plains in Peru. They are an enigma, intruiging archaeologists and alike as to their origin and purpose. No one has any proof as to who built them or why. They are thought by many to have been created between 200BC and 600AD, by the Nazca civilization, and used for rituals relating to astronomy. Intriguingly however, they are only really observed as the images they portray from above.

Nazca Lines

2008-12-05T16:46:30Z

Entheogenicorder:

[[http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1007/april17nasca2mz6.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Nazca Lines are mysterious images, stretching across the Nazca Plains in Peru]]

Nazca Lines

2008-12-05T16:46:06Z

Entheogenicorder: New page: Nazca Lines are mysterious images, stretching across the Nazca Plains in Peru

[[Image:http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1007/april17nasca2mz6.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Nazca Lines are mysterious images, stretching across the Nazca Plains in Peru]]

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-05T16:40:02Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-05T16:38:08Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-05T16:26:36Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-05T16:25:57Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-04T13:15:59Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-12-04T13:04:22Z

Entheogenicorder:

Talk:Pangaea

2008-11-20T17:46:37Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-11-20T16:55:14Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-11-20T12:05:05Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-11-20T12:04:11Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Any Suggestions */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-11-19T12:39:08Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Please Explain */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-11-19T12:28:10Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Please Explain */

==Please Explain==

Do I need to add anymore than that? How do you propose the flood broke up the super-continent to form the world as we know it in a year? From the miniature tectonic activities we have in our current environment causing the massive natural disasters they do, would this not have destroyed the world with mega-earthquakes and unending volcanic eruptions, changing the very chemical make-up of the atmosphere?{{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}
: You might like to have a look over the articles [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/ here]. I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects. The ''intention'' was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?). And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity ''affected'' the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
::I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enormously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastrophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)

Good point, but are you an expert in the field, or just (like Philip and myself) a well-educated layman? We need to quote authoritative sources in our articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, I'm no expert. It was just what came to my head as I read the article. If I had references etc. to cite then I might have added a sub-heading on the article about it. Maybe I'll be able to back up my words with qualifications one day, but untill then I'll just share my theories with people.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:27, 19th November 2008(EST)

Freedom

2008-11-17T13:55:21Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Paradox of Positive Freedom */

'''Freedom''' is the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. More specifically, it can mean:

*Ability to act freely: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions.
*Release from captivity or slavery: release or rescue from being physically bound, or from being confined, enslaved, captured, or imprisoned.
*The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.
*Exemption: immunity from an obligation or duty.
*Civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
*The right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

The desire for freedom was one of the founding principles of the United States of America. Today, freedom still stands proudly at the top of a list of aspirations for Americans. All Americans, no matter their creed or the color of their skin agrees that: "we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

== Freedom & the Book of Galatians ==

John Hanneman wrote, "Inner freedom has to do with the very essence of our being." This "inner freedom" is the theme of the book of [[Galatians]].

The [[Greek]] words for freedom appear 36 times in the [[New Testament]]. [[Paul]] uses them 28 times in his letters, 10 times alone in Galatians. The purpose of this book is clear: to get [[Christians]] out from under the law and into freedom in [[Christ]], to have the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] replace the [[Torah]] in our lives.

Galatians reveals why we struggle so much with law. It identifies the key ingredient to becoming free, and how people can enjoy freedom in Christ day in and day out. The theme of the book is freedom.

Paul writes, {{Bible quote|It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.|book=Galatians|chap=5|verses=1|version=NIV}}
In his word of greeting in the introduction, {{Bible quote|Grace to you and peace from [[Father God|God our Father]], and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of God the Father.|book=Galatians|chap=1|verses=3-4|version=NASB}} the [[apostle]] defines what he means by freedom. Following his wish for "grace and peace," he uses two phrases that capture for Christians the two ways they are free as a result of their relationship with God.

The first phrase is that the Lord Jesus Christ "gave Himself for our sins." Here the apostle is describing our freedom from slavery to, and from, the power of [[sin]]. This is the great doctrine of [[justification]]. We are born into sin, separated from God, but God sent his Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. In the [[atonement]], all of our sins, past, present, and future, have been paid for." John Stott comments: "The death of Jesus Christ was primarily neither a display of love, nor an example of heroism, but a sacrifice for sin."<ref>http://www.speraindeo.org/julread.html</ref><ref>http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/hanneman/968.html</ref>

== Two Ideas of Freedom ==

Isaiah Berlin, [[OM]] (6 June 1909 – 5 November 1997), is regarded as a leading liberal philosopher of the 20th Century. However, he introduced two concepts of freedom which can be universally regarded. Berlin's work on theories of freedom has had a lasting influence. His 1958 lecture, "Two Concepts of Liberty" is famous for its distinction between positive and negative liberty, and has informed much of the debate since then on the relationship between liberty and other values.

===Negative Freedom===

The first concept of freedom, and the one with which we are usually most familiar, is what Berlin cites as 'negative' freedom. Berlin sums this up in the simple question "Over what area am I master?"<ref>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77888213</ref>. It refers to the idea of liberty or freedom as an idea of the opportunities available to you, the number of doors open to you or the different roads you may walk down [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. A recent example is that, in imposing a smoking ban on its citizens, a government is restricting their negative liberty, specifically their freedom to smoke in certain public areas. The degree of freedom is also affected by the nature of the restrictions on somebody. For example, prohibiting a given person from the vote is removing a far greater proportion of a person's negative freedom than asking them to take off their shoes indoors[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/].

===Positive Freedom===

The notion of positive freedom can be more difficult to explain and understand, and is closely related to the ideas of paternalism. It can be stated basically as "Who is master?<ref>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77888213</ref>" and refers to the idea of being free in the sense that you are free to make the right choices. For example, if negative freedom is a question of how many doors are open to you, positive freedom is a question of which door you decide to take [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. To understand the concept of positive freedom more easily, the ‘self’ may be split into two distinct characters; one which is described as a ‘higher’ or ‘rational’ self; and another which is the ‘lower’ or ‘irrational’ self. The measure of positive freedom is whether the higher self has direction over the lower self; whether a person has the control to make the right choices, e.g. I may know that it is a good idea to exercise once a day, however, I would much rather sit on the sofa and be lazy. The rational side of me knows that for long term benefit, I should exercise, whilst the irrational side desires short-term gratification; lazing around all day. The achievement of positive freedom is listening to the rational self and doing what is best, in this case going for a swim, over doing that which brings instant and short-term fulfilment; sitting on the sofa. To some this is the very essence of true freedom, and in order for people to be truly free, there must be an element of state guided interference in their lives; they should be given rules and laws to abide by and achievements to aspire to, all of which help them to achieve positive freedom.

===Paradox of Positive Freedom===

This concept implies that a person could be convinced or coerced into doing things they wouldn’t usually do, on the basis that it is what they would do, were they thinking rationally [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. This paradox is looked at by Berlin, and he speaks about governments or regimes which have used this concept to disastrous consequence, stating that it has been one of the cornerstones of both Stalin-Communist and Hitler-Fascist societies. That the coercion of it's own citizens into doing something, he says is bad enough. But the greatest atrocity is that these regimes use the idea of positive freedom to convince their populous that they are acting in the way they would act anyway, if their 'rational self' had president over their 'irrational' self [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. Many people believe that this is evidence that Berlin is a Liberal, and that he denounces the concept of positive freedom as invalid. Berlin vehemently denies this, and claims only that he seeks to identify that it is a concept which has, can be and will be misused. He also claims that many of mankind's greatest atrocities have occurred as a result of attempts to reconcile all of mankind's goals into one [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Isaiah+Berlin-a018850965].

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/freedom/ What Liberals Say - Category: Freedom], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Bible Study]]

Freedom

2008-11-17T13:50:22Z

Entheogenicorder:

'''Freedom''' is the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. More specifically, it can mean:

*Ability to act freely: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions.
*Release from captivity or slavery: release or rescue from being physically bound, or from being confined, enslaved, captured, or imprisoned.
*The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.
*Exemption: immunity from an obligation or duty.
*Civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
*The right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

The desire for freedom was one of the founding principles of the United States of America. Today, freedom still stands proudly at the top of a list of aspirations for Americans. All Americans, no matter their creed or the color of their skin agrees that: "we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

== Freedom & the Book of Galatians ==

John Hanneman wrote, "Inner freedom has to do with the very essence of our being." This "inner freedom" is the theme of the book of [[Galatians]].

The [[Greek]] words for freedom appear 36 times in the [[New Testament]]. [[Paul]] uses them 28 times in his letters, 10 times alone in Galatians. The purpose of this book is clear: to get [[Christians]] out from under the law and into freedom in [[Christ]], to have the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] replace the [[Torah]] in our lives.

Galatians reveals why we struggle so much with law. It identifies the key ingredient to becoming free, and how people can enjoy freedom in Christ day in and day out. The theme of the book is freedom.

Paul writes, {{Bible quote|It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.|book=Galatians|chap=5|verses=1|version=NIV}}
In his word of greeting in the introduction, {{Bible quote|Grace to you and peace from [[Father God|God our Father]], and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of God the Father.|book=Galatians|chap=1|verses=3-4|version=NASB}} the [[apostle]] defines what he means by freedom. Following his wish for "grace and peace," he uses two phrases that capture for Christians the two ways they are free as a result of their relationship with God.

The first phrase is that the Lord Jesus Christ "gave Himself for our sins." Here the apostle is describing our freedom from slavery to, and from, the power of [[sin]]. This is the great doctrine of [[justification]]. We are born into sin, separated from God, but God sent his Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. In the [[atonement]], all of our sins, past, present, and future, have been paid for." John Stott comments: "The death of Jesus Christ was primarily neither a display of love, nor an example of heroism, but a sacrifice for sin."<ref>http://www.speraindeo.org/julread.html</ref><ref>http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/hanneman/968.html</ref>

== Two Ideas of Freedom ==

Isaiah Berlin, [[OM]] (6 June 1909 – 5 November 1997), is regarded as a leading liberal philosopher of the 20th Century. However, he introduced two concepts of freedom which can be universally regarded. Berlin's work on theories of freedom has had a lasting influence. His 1958 lecture, "Two Concepts of Liberty" is famous for its distinction between positive and negative liberty, and has informed much of the debate since then on the relationship between liberty and other values.

===Negative Freedom===

The first concept of freedom, and the one with which we are usually most familiar, is what Berlin cites as 'negative' freedom. Berlin sums this up in the simple question "Over what area am I master?"<ref>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77888213</ref>. It refers to the idea of liberty or freedom as an idea of the opportunities available to you, the number of doors open to you or the different roads you may walk down [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. A recent example is that, in imposing a smoking ban on its citizens, a government is restricting their negative liberty, specifically their freedom to smoke in certain public areas. The degree of freedom is also affected by the nature of the restrictions on somebody. For example, prohibiting a given person from the vote is removing a far greater proportion of a person's negative freedom than asking them to take off their shoes indoors[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/].

===Positive Freedom===

The notion of positive freedom can be more difficult to explain and understand, and is closely related to the ideas of paternalism. It can be stated basically as "Who is master?<ref>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77888213</ref>" and refers to the idea of being free in the sense that you are free to make the right choices. For example, if negative freedom is a question of how many doors are open to you, positive freedom is a question of which door you decide to take [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. To understand the concept of positive freedom more easily, the ‘self’ may be split into two distinct characters; one which is described as a ‘higher’ or ‘rational’ self; and another which is the ‘lower’ or ‘irrational’ self. The measure of positive freedom is whether the higher self has direction over the lower self; whether a person has the control to make the right choices, e.g. I may know that it is a good idea to exercise once a day, however, I would much rather sit on the sofa and be lazy. The rational side of me knows that for long term benefit, I should exercise, whilst the irrational side desires short-term gratification; lazing around all day. The achievement of positive freedom is listening to the rational self and doing what is best, in this case going for a swim, over doing that which brings instant and short-term fulfilment; sitting on the sofa. To some this is the very essence of true freedom, and in order for people to be truly free, there must be an element of state guided interference in their lives; they should be given rules and laws to abide by and achievements to aspire to, all of which help them to achieve positive freedom.

===Paradox of Positive Freedom===

This concept implies that a person could be convinced or coerced into doing things they wouldn’t usually do, on the basis that it is what they would do, were they thinking rationally [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. This paradox is looked at by Berlin, and he speaks about governments or regimes which have used this concept to disastrous consequence, stating that it has been one of the cornerstones of both Stalin-Communist and Hitler-Fascist societies. That the coercion of it's own citizens into doing something, he says is bad enough. But the greatest atrocity is that these regimes use the idea of positive freedom to convince their populous that they are acting in the way they would act anyway, if their 'rational self' had president over their 'irrational' self [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. Many people belief this evidence that Berlin is a Liberal, and that he denounces the concept of positive freedom as invalid. Berlin vehemently denies this, and claims only that he seeks to identify that it is a concept which has, can be and will be misused. He also claims that many of mankind's greatest atrocities have occurred as a result of attempts to reconcile all of mankind's goals into one [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Isaiah+Berlin-a018850965].

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/freedom/ What Liberals Say - Category: Freedom], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Bible Study]]

Freedom

2008-11-17T13:49:41Z

Entheogenicorder:

'''Freedom''' is the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. More specifically, it can mean:

*Ability to act freely: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions.
*Release from captivity or slavery: release or rescue from being physically bound, or from being confined, enslaved, captured, or imprisoned.
*The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.
*Exemption: immunity from an obligation or duty.
*Civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
*The right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

The desire for freedom was one of the founding principles of the United States of America. Today, freedom still stands proudly at the top of a list of aspirations for Americans. All Americans, no matter their creed or the color of their skin agrees that: "we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

== Freedom & the Book of Galatians ==

John Hanneman wrote, "Inner freedom has to do with the very essence of our being." This "inner freedom" is the theme of the book of [[Galatians]].

The [[Greek]] words for freedom appear 36 times in the [[New Testament]]. [[Paul]] uses them 28 times in his letters, 10 times alone in Galatians. The purpose of this book is clear: to get [[Christians]] out from under the law and into freedom in [[Christ]], to have the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] replace the [[Torah]] in our lives.

Galatians reveals why we struggle so much with law. It identifies the key ingredient to becoming free, and how people can enjoy freedom in Christ day in and day out. The theme of the book is freedom.

Paul writes, {{Bible quote|It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.|book=Galatians|chap=5|verses=1|version=NIV}}
In his word of greeting in the introduction, {{Bible quote|Grace to you and peace from [[Father God|God our Father]], and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of God the Father.|book=Galatians|chap=1|verses=3-4|version=NASB}} the [[apostle]] defines what he means by freedom. Following his wish for "grace and peace," he uses two phrases that capture for Christians the two ways they are free as a result of their relationship with God.

The first phrase is that the Lord Jesus Christ "gave Himself for our sins." Here the apostle is describing our freedom from slavery to, and from, the power of [[sin]]. This is the great doctrine of [[justification]]. We are born into sin, separated from God, but God sent his Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. In the [[atonement]], all of our sins, past, present, and future, have been paid for." John Stott comments: "The death of Jesus Christ was primarily neither a display of love, nor an example of heroism, but a sacrifice for sin."<ref>http://www.speraindeo.org/julread.html</ref><ref>http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/hanneman/968.html</ref>

== Two Ideas of Freedom ==

Isaiah Berlin, [[OM]] (6 June 1909 – 5 November 1997), is regarded as a leading liberal philosopher of the 20th Century. However, he introduced two concepts of freedom which can be universally regarded. Berlin's work on theories of freedom has had a lasting influence. His 1958 lecture, "Two Concepts of Liberty" is famous for its distinction between positive and negative liberty, and has informed much of the debate since then on the relationship between liberty and other values.

=Negative Freedom=

The first concept of freedom, and the one with which we are usually most familiar, is what Berlin cites as 'negative' freedom. Berlin sums this up in the simple question "Over what area am I master?"<ref>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77888213</ref>. It refers to the idea of liberty or freedom as an idea of the opportunities available to you, the number of doors open to you or the different roads you may walk down [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. A recent example is that, in imposing a smoking ban on its citizens, a government is restricting their negative liberty, specifically their freedom to smoke in certain public areas. The degree of freedom is also affected by the nature of the restrictions on somebody. For example, prohibiting a given person from the vote is removing a far greater proportion of a person's negative freedom than asking them to take off their shoes indoors[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/].

=Positive Freedom=

The notion of positive freedom can be more difficult to explain and understand, and is closely related to the ideas of paternalism. It can be stated basically as "Who is master?<ref>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77888213</ref>" and refers to the idea of being free in the sense that you are free to make the right choices. For example, if negative freedom is a question of how many doors are open to you, positive freedom is a question of which door you decide to take [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. To understand the concept of positive freedom more easily, the ‘self’ may be split into two distinct characters; one which is described as a ‘higher’ or ‘rational’ self; and another which is the ‘lower’ or ‘irrational’ self. The measure of positive freedom is whether the higher self has direction over the lower self; whether a person has the control to make the right choices, e.g. I may know that it is a good idea to exercise once a day, however, I would much rather sit on the sofa and be lazy. The rational side of me knows that for long term benefit, I should exercise, whilst the irrational side desires short-term gratification; lazing around all day. The achievement of positive freedom is listening to the rational self and doing what is best, in this case going for a swim, over doing that which brings instant and short-term fulfilment; sitting on the sofa. To some this is the very essence of true freedom, and in order for people to be truly free, there must be an element of state guided interference in their lives; they should be given rules and laws to abide by and achievements to aspire to, all of which help them to achieve positive freedom.

=Paradox of Positive Freedom=

This concept implies that a person could be convinced or coerced into doing things they wouldn’t usually do, on the basis that it is what they would do, were they thinking rationally [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. This paradox is looked at by Berlin, and he speaks about governments or regimes which have used this concept to disastrous consequence, stating that it has been one of the cornerstones of both Stalin-Communist and Hitler-Fascist societies. That the coercion of it's own citizens into doing something, he says is bad enough. But the greatest atrocity is that these regimes use the idea of positive freedom to convince their populous that they are acting in the way they would act anyway, if their 'rational self' had president over their 'irrational' self [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/]. Many people belief this evidence that Berlin is a Liberal, and that he denounces the concept of positive freedom as invalid. Berlin vehemently denies this, and claims only that he seeks to identify that it is a concept which has, can be and will be misused. He also claims that many of mankind's greatest atrocities have occurred as a result of attempts to reconcile all of mankind's goals into one [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Isaiah+Berlin-a018850965].

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/freedom/ What Liberals Say - Category: Freedom], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Bible Study]]

Talk:Pangaea

2008-11-17T12:56:41Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Please Explain */

Talk:Pangaea

2008-11-17T12:55:38Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Please Explain */

==Please Explain==

Do I need to add anymore than that? How do you propose the flood broke up the super-continent to form the world as we know it in a year? From the miniature tectonic activities we have in our current environment causing the massive natural disasters they do, would this not have destroyed the world with mega-earthquakes and unending volcanic eruptions, changing the very chemical make-up of the atmosphere?{{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}
: You might like to have a look over the articles [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/ here]. I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects. The ''intention'' was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?). And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity ''affected'' the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
::I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enourmously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)

Talk:Essay:What's wrong with the death penalty system in the United States?

2008-11-17T12:36:50Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Liberals */

==Logic of the article==
If I understand the article correctly, the premise is that if states executed more people, more quickly, then the death penalty would be more of a deterrent than it currently is.

First, it is hard to reconcile anyone who is a Christian could also support the death penalty (the whole what would Jesus do thing). Secondly, for a government to take the life of one of it's citizens, is the ultimate punishment...there is no reprieve. If it is found that mistakes were made in the judicial process, you can't release someone you've executed, which is why a very wide latitude is usually given to death row inmates when it comes to appeals. A government should give someone sentenced with a death penalty every legal option to ensure that they have had fair access to the entire judicial process. The fact is, that innocent people have been executed in the U.S., and it's easy to write off those cases until you're the one fighting for your life. Anyone who places any value on human life should be willing to allow someone sentenced to death every avenue possible to prove their innocence; because it's not a mistake that a government can atone for. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I'm not done with my essay yet, and I plan to address the issues of both Christianity and the death penalty AND the issue of innocence in detail.

:By the way, my final thesis is actually going to be that the US must either put up or die as far as the death penalty is. I'm leaving that open. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals==

Fundamentally, my beliefs are liberal, but in many ways I support the death penalty for those who have irrefutably taken another persons life. I find your article extremely presumptious on my beliefs, and your readiness to blame liberal influence. I think you're too ready to divide the world into [[conservative]] and [[liberal]] (as demonstrated by the encyclopedia entries), when it is clearly more complex than that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_and_conservative].[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:35 28 August 2008 (BST)

Talk:Essay:What's wrong with the death penalty system in the United States?

2008-11-17T12:36:34Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Liberals */

==Logic of the article==
If I understand the article correctly, the premise is that if states executed more people, more quickly, then the death penalty would be more of a deterrent than it currently is.

First, it is hard to reconcile anyone who is a Christian could also support the death penalty (the whole what would Jesus do thing). Secondly, for a government to take the life of one of it's citizens, is the ultimate punishment...there is no reprieve. If it is found that mistakes were made in the judicial process, you can't release someone you've executed, which is why a very wide latitude is usually given to death row inmates when it comes to appeals. A government should give someone sentenced with a death penalty every legal option to ensure that they have had fair access to the entire judicial process. The fact is, that innocent people have been executed in the U.S., and it's easy to write off those cases until you're the one fighting for your life. Anyone who places any value on human life should be willing to allow someone sentenced to death every avenue possible to prove their innocence; because it's not a mistake that a government can atone for. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I'm not done with my essay yet, and I plan to address the issues of both Christianity and the death penalty AND the issue of innocence in detail.

:By the way, my final thesis is actually going to be that the US must either put up or die as far as the death penalty is. I'm leaving that open. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals==

Fundamentally, my beliefs are liberal, but in many ways I support the death penalty for those who have irrefutably taken another persons life. I find your article extremely presumptious on my beliefs, and your readiness to blame liberal influence. I think you're too ready to divide the world into [[conservative]] and [[liberal]] (as demonstrated by the encyclopedia entries), when it is clearly more complex than that [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_and_conservative]].[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:35 28 August 2008 (BST)

Liberal and conservative

2008-11-14T15:06:46Z

Entheogenicorder:

The terms ''liberal'' and ''conservative'' describe distinct groups in U.S. politics, yet they are hard to define, in part because the two groups disagree on how they see themselves and their opponents.

Barbara Lee said, "It's time to put to bed the myth that this is a conservative nation. Americans are progressive. They believe in the common good, and they want a government that works for everybody, not just the wealthy few." [http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/NATION/106220098/1001&template=nextpage]

This quotation from a U.S. liberal defines conservatives as favoring wealthy people over the rest of the country and labels them as opposing the common good. Conservatives, on the other hand, see liberals seeking only the good of special interests (such as teachers over students & parents, workers over employers, single people and homosexuals over married people and families, etc.).

==For our Nation, not our Political Alignment==

It seems true that, now in 2008 and nearing 2009, it is time for people to stop accentuating the divide between Liberal and Conservative. It is time now for the wedge that has been drive between these two, equally valuable, political ideals to be removed. They are not so incompatible. As long as we can spare the unfortunate and the poor from living on the streets, as long as every person in America is given the opportunities of clothing, shelter, food and water, without discrimination and without malice. There are and always will be some people who are rich and some who aren't, but it is the duty of those who are rich to help their brothers and sisters who are not so fortunate, just as it is the duty of those who are unfortunate to be proactive and work hard in seeking their own fortune. There is no need to be left or right wing. There is only a need to be an American, and a human being. There is no need to discriminate between Christians, Jews, Hindu's or Muslims, their beliefs will not be changed by force, only reason.

The media of this country is much to blame, but they have elicited their desired reaction from Conservatives. They want Conservatism to be even more inaccessible to the average young person, in schools and colleges, they want it to be unacceptable to be Conservative, by pushing Conservatism into a corner. I am not Conservative. I am not Liberal. I am a human being. There should be a national defence mechanism, but it should equally be a transparent one to the people it claims to protect. The restrictions from the most recent US government on people's civil liberties are unacceptable, and inexplicable. As their explanations for war and the September 11th disaster are insufficient. It is time for a dawn of togetherness for America, whether Barrack Obama is the man to do this, I am not sure. But there are those who would not even grant him the opportunity to show what he would do.

It is time for Americans to be American and stop quibbling over petty issues. If you have made your mind up on an issue before you hear it, you are a fool. If you take one course of action based solely on your 'political alignment' you are a fool. The wise man will look at each individual issue subjectively, as it should be, seek counsel from others, and then take the course of action which is most logically correct. It is time for less showman and more substance, for less differences and more action. The terrorist threat should not be ignored, but neither should it be exasperated or exaggerated. As a great leader, John F. Kennedy once said, "We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it." [http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm] Whatever your opinions of JFK, this speech he made is one of his most moving, and if coupled with the final address of President Eisenhower[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5407.htm], it demonstrates some of the threats which faced America following WWII. From President Eisenhower's farewell address; "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." As they both said, this threat will persist. Where is this threat now? It has not vanished.

We should not underestimate the similarities between the rise of Fascism, the rise of Communism, and the current path of global policies[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm]. We should guard against it, and be united as people.

See: [[Political spectrum]]

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Talk:Liberal and conservative

2008-11-14T13:56:35Z

Entheogenicorder:

Was that a JFK quote? If so, let's label it more clearly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes it was JFK, think I've labelled it better now, thanks. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 08:55, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal and conservative

2008-11-14T13:55:48Z

Entheogenicorder:

Was that a JFK quote? If so, let's label it more clearly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes it was JFK, think I've labelled it better now, thanks. --[[User talk:Entheogenicorder|Talk] 08:55, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Liberal and conservative

2008-11-14T13:53:37Z

Entheogenicorder: /* For our Nation, not our Political Alignment */

The terms ''liberal'' and ''conservative'' describe distinct groups in U.S. politics, yet they are hard to define, in part because the two groups disagree on how they see themselves and their opponents.

Barbara Lee said, "It's time to put to bed the myth that this is a conservative nation. Americans are progressive. They believe in the common good, and they want a government that works for everybody, not just the wealthy few." [http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/NATION/106220098/1001&template=nextpage]

This quotation from a U.S. liberal defines conservatives as favoring wealthy people over the rest of the country and labels them as opposing the common good. Conservatives, on the other hand, see liberals seeking only the good of special interests (such as teachers over students & parents, workers over employers, single people and homosexuals over married people and families, etc.).

==For our Nation, not our Political Alignment==

It seems true that, now in 2008 and nearing 2009, it is time for people to stop accentuating the divide between Liberal and Conservative. It is time now for the wedge that has been drive between these two, equally valuable, political ideals to be removed. They are not so incompatible. As long as we can spare the unfortunate and the poor from living on the streets, as long as every person in America is given the opportunities of clothing, shelter, food and water, without discrimination and without malice. There are and always will be some people who are rich and some who aren't, but it is the duty of those who are rich to help their brothers and sisters who are not so fortunate, just as it is the duty of those who are unfortunate to be proactive and work hard in seeking their own fortune. There is no need to be left or right wing. There is only a need to be an American, and a human being. There is no need to discriminate between Christians, Jews, Hindu's or Muslims, their beliefs will not be changed by force, only reason.

The media of this country is much to blame, but they have elicited their desired reaction from Conservatives. They want Conservatism to be even more inaccessible to the average young person, in schools and colleges, they want it to be unacceptable to be Conservative, by pushing Conservatism into a corner. I am not Conservative. I am not Liberal. I am a human being. There should be a national defence mechanism, but it should equally be a transparent one to the people it claims to protect. The restrictions from the most recent US government on people's civil liberties are unacceptable, and inexplicable. As their explanations for war and the September 11th disaster are insufficient. It is time for a dawn of togetherness for America, whether Barrack Obama is the man to do this, I am not sure. But there are those who would not even grant him the opportunity to show what he would do.

It is time for Americans to be American and stop quibbling over petty issues. If you have made your mind up on an issue before you hear it, you are a fool. If you take one course of action based solely on your 'political alignment' you are a fool. The wise man will look at each individual issue subjectively, as it should be, seek counsel from others, and then take the course of action which is most logically correct. It is time for less showman and more substance, for less differences and more action. The terrorist threat should not be ignored, but neither should it be exasperated or exaggerated. As a great leader, John F. Kennedy once said, "We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it." <ref>http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm</ref> Whatever your opinions of JFK, this speech he made is one of his most moving, and if coupled with the final address of President Eisenhower<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5407.htm</ref>, it demonstrates some of the threats which faced America following WWII. From President Eisenhower's farewell address; "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." As they both said, this threat will persist. Where is this threat now? It has not vanished.

We should not underestimate the similarities between the rise of Fascism, the rise of Communism, and the current path of global policies<ref>http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm</ref>. We should guard against it, and be united as people.

See: [[Political spectrum]]

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Liberal and conservative

2008-11-14T12:53:10Z

Entheogenicorder:

The terms ''liberal'' and ''conservative'' describe distinct groups in U.S. politics, yet they are hard to define, in part because the two groups disagree on how they see themselves and their opponents.

Barbara Lee said, "It's time to put to bed the myth that this is a conservative nation. Americans are progressive. They believe in the common good, and they want a government that works for everybody, not just the wealthy few." [http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/NATION/106220098/1001&template=nextpage]

This quotation from a U.S. liberal defines conservatives as favoring wealthy people over the rest of the country and labels them as opposing the common good. Conservatives, on the other hand, see liberals seeking only the good of special interests (such as teachers over students & parents, workers over employers, single people and homosexuals over married people and families, etc.).

==For our Nation, not our Political Alignment==

It seems true that, now in 2008 and nearing 2009, it is time for people to stop accentuating the divide between Liberal and Conservative. It is time now for the wedge that has been drive between these two, equally valuable, political ideals to be removed. They are not so incompatible. As long as we can spare the unfortunate and the poor from living on the streets, as long as every person in America is given the opportunities of clothing, shelter, food and water, without discrimination and without malice. There are and always will be some people who are rich and some who aren't, but it is the duty of those who are rich to help their brothers and sisters who are not so fortunate, just as it is the duty of those who are unfortunate to be proactive and work hard in seeking their own fortune. There is no need to be left or right wing. There is only a need to be an American, and a human being. There is no need to discriminate between Christians, Jews, Hindu's or Muslims, their beliefs will not be changed by force, only reason.

The media of this country is much to blame, but they have elicited their desired reaction from Conservatives. They want Conservatism to be even more inaccessible to the average young person, in schools and colleges, they want it to be unacceptable to be Conservative, by pushing Conservatism into a corner. I am not Conservative. I am not Liberal. I am a human being. There should be a national defence mechanism, but it should equally be a transparent one to the people it claims to protect. The restrictions from the most recent US government on people's civil liberties are unacceptable, and inexplicable. As their explanations for war and the September 11th disaster are insufficient. It is time for a dawn of togetherness for America, whether Barrack Obama is the man to do this, I am not sure. But there are those who would not even grant him the opportunity to show what he would do.

It is time for Americans to be American and stop quibbling over petty issues. If you have made your mind up on an issue before you hear it, you are a fool. If you take one course of action based solely on your 'political alignment' you are a fool. The wise man will look at each individual issue subjectively, as it should be, seek counsel from others, and then take the course of action which is most logically correct. It is time for less showman and more substance, for less differences and more action. The terrorist threat should not be ignored, but neither should it be exasperated or exaggerated. As a great leader once said, "We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it." <ref>http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm</ref> Whatever your opinions of JFK, this speech he made is one of his most moving, and if coupled with the final address of President Eisenhower<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5407.htm</ref>, it demonstrates some of the threats which faced America following WWII. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." As they both said, this threat will persist. Where is this threat now? It has not vanished.

We should not underestimate the similarities between the rise of Fascism, the rise of Communism, and the current path of global policies<ref>http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm</ref>. We should guard against it, and be united as people.

See: [[Political spectrum]]

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2008-11-10T17:00:27Z

Entheogenicorder:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

Talk:Liberal

2008-08-28T14:53:14Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Positive Liberal Contributions To Society */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 

Conservatives conserve and liberals liberate. Yes, this is trite, but it is a lens through which to view various issues when you wonder "is this liberal or is this conservative?"

At the essential level of conservatism is a faith in God. This is necessarily so because all truth springs from a knowledge and understanding of God, either through special or general revelation sources. These truths are immutable laws which govern our reality, ie, everything from from the smallest particles to the galaxies at the edge of the universe. They also govern our thought life, ie, everything from morals and ethics to our sense of humor (or lack thereof). Break a law, pay the consequence. Jump off of a cliff and you land with quite a thump, whether you wish to or not. Act immorally and there is a similar effect. Laws are laws, reality is reality.

Now, conservatives wish to uphold what we have derived from an understanding of reality, things like the United States constitution for conservative politicians, the Bible for conservative theologians, free markets for conservative economists and on and on - as long as the philosophy, theory or document is based upon truth, it's all good! God made it this way, and it is good. But for the corruption of sin.

This is where liberals come in. They will liberate us from the oppression of truth! They are not constrained by essential truth, by right and wrong, by good and evil. They are constrained only by their imaginations. Ideas spring forth like wildflowers in a meadow. Using what I call "kernels of truth" these ideas are capable of maintaining substance, even gravity, under close inspection because when you deconstruct the idea, you find that kernel of truth, firmly upholding even the wackiest logic (thus illustrating, in a backhanded way, the power of truth!). The fatal error in the liberal approach is this; they cannot be bound by truth. Their vain search for power, self-fulfillment or whatever their base motive is, it is not constrained by reality, by truth. These ideas evolve into causes, cults, false religions, political platforms, etc. There is no systematic approach to truth, ideas are spun from the ether, around whatever kernel of truth will support the web of deception.

This is not to historically define conservatives or liberals as the good guys or the bad guys. Conservatives may work evil by conserving, at all costs and with brutal oppression, a flawed political system (usually spawned by liberal thinkers!). Thus the tyrants of history maintained power. Yes, it happens even amongst Christian societies - man is sinful, and will not be reflected well upon by history. Liberals have been responsible for liberating people from the dominant, oppressive regimes of the past. (This is why some say our founding fathers were liberals. They were, but when it came time to put together a viable political system of their own, they were very conservative, using political thought that grew from conservative theology). Liberals liberate, remember? Thus conservatives have found the wrong philosophy, ideology, theology to conserve and ended up working evil and liberals have found strength in truth and worked for the good. So it goes.

In our society today liberals are busy liberating us from the oppression of the Bible and the written Constitution (preferring, instead, a "living Constitution"). The liberation from Biblical principals is directed from the pit of hell itself. Political liberalism is an extension of that evil. Liberals have been so deceived because we Christians have dropped out of the soul-winning business and focussed on programming, innovative church management and self-improvement. Love IS the answer, the liberals of the 60's had it absolutely correct, their kernel of truth was more than a kernel. We can love away liberalism. Sounds simple minded, doesn't it? But we have all the power necessary to defeat what is at the root of todays liberalism. Their power is exercised only because we do not adequately militate against it. Our society depends on us, true conservatives, for survival. We are the salt. We are the light. We bring the message of redemption, God's love - and God's truth.
:: I really don't know whether I agree with that, Mark - there are plenty of Christian liberals and conservatives who don't profess any religious beliefs. In my own country the leader of the largest centre-right party says is an atheist, while the leader of the leftist Progressives is a staunch Catholic. I agree that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, but I don't think liberals are in any way evil or diabolically inspired - 200 years ago, the emancipation of slaves was seen as a liberal view. I don't think you'd find anyone today who'd say that was an act of evil. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Of course there are confused people. Christians who are political liberals will always be found to have small or very large and obvious, cracks in their theology. Currently, it is not possible to integrate Christianity into the Democratic political platform. If one is called into politics, or into working for a political cause or simply trying to vote with integrity, a Christian cannot support todays liberalism. A Democrat who claims to be Christian will inevitably be found to lack theological integrity and will be revealed as a liberal through and through.
Let me make it clear; liberals liberate and if the moral disintigration of the United States corrupts the government toward oppression, then todays conservatives will become liberators (politcal liberals), revolutionaries in the name of truth!

If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I agree. Someone must put pictures of famous liberal democrats and photoshop horns onto them. That would drive the point home.

:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

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

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It seems that Phelps supported Gore when Gore refused to support gay rights, then turned on Gore when he joined Clinton in promoting gay rights, going so far as to picket the funeral of Gore's father screaming "Your Dad's in Hell!" That doesn't strike me as liberal, just opportunist. Fred Phelps has only one issue that he cares about, which almost makes him apolitical. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but this is sort of absurd. I certainly don't want WBC to be called ''conservative'', but I don't think they're liberal either. That's just kind of silly. I don't care who he supported for president. Any organization as vehemently opposed to the sin of homosexuality as they are cannot be described as "liberal", since liberals won't even admit that homosexuality is a sin in the first place! That's kind of like calling NARAL conservative simply because they are as proud of America and her military as much as conservatives are (which I'm absolutely not saying they are, but I needed something to use as an example). It's just silly. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 02:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Whoops, I meant to say NARAL, not NARTH. Lol, NARTH ''is'' rather conservative. It's fixed now.

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Dem damn dirty libruls!!!

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: How is Machiavelli in anyway a liberal? I believe his writings stand outside any political scale, and were written to do so. Also, liberal does not mean progress. On this site the 'modern meaning of liberal' is just about anything the admin want it to be, from Facism, to pornographic extroverts. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:50 28 August 2008 (BST)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::I saw that in the article and actually registered to help you guys correct it. I wouldn't want an error like that giving the site a poor reputation. Unfortunately, the page is locked. Here's the [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml link on Oxford's site] showing Professor Dawkin's title, and U.Chicago's [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama professor profile] of Obama seems to link directly to the UC press release. --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 10:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even if we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you certainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to [[liberal style]]. It fits in very nicely over there.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
::Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''Pragmatically'' what this encyclopedia needs is less obfuscation, and chipping away by internationalists, of the conservative, American, POV of Conservapedia, to make it read neutral. Moving something ''Europeans'' and liberals don't agree with, to another article, is censorship. If liberal users disagree with the conservative point of view of CP, they should give up trying to change it, and find a liberal/internationalist encyclopedia to edit, IMO. If they did, two-thirds of these needless arguments would be eliminated, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:04, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I think RossC's suggestion is a good one. Not because "calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is not a liberal trait (though no one has yet demonstrated that it is), but because (as a couple of others have said) it isn't a political or quasi-political belief like the other items in the list, and it looks out of place here. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

*Well, I added it at Andy's suggestion, made on his talk page, as the edit note clearly states, so the question as to if it belongs ''here'' is pretty moot, I think. I disagree that Schlafly hasn't demonstrated that fact, 100 times over, on the Dawkins or Obama talk pages. I do agree that it appears only liberals disagree on that. It is an argument certainly older than CP, between conservatives and liberals, and all the more a bone of contention between Europeans and United States conservatives. It boils down to a clear disagreement between ''Internationalists'' (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as ''Internationalists'' see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served. So, while wanting to acknowledge what the liberal "world view" is, it cannot, nor should it be, incorporated into CP's articles, other than to point out what those who believe in it think, and why American conservatives think they are wrong.

*Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, ''certainly are not United States conservatives'', and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals.
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion, which (again with the personal attacks) stems from the idea that just because some here are liberal, not American, internationalist, means that their objections are part of some anti-American, anti-CP, anti-conservative or anti-whatever viewpoint quest to annoy, obfuscate or slow down progress. The reason that I, and a couple of others, object to that sentence is nothing to do with opinion, just logic, and the suggestion to move it to another article is just about appropriateness. A list about conservative positions would not include anything that isn't a position (like professor-calling), same as a list on liberal positions would not. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::'''''Personal attacks?''''' On whom? Liberals in general? Some particular liberal? I demand an apology! CP is indeed an American ''conservative'' encyclopedia. You somehow seem intent on arguing forever, obstructing, until your personal POV (self-declared as logic) is accepted as the model of rationality. And you somehow mistake sticking to one's principles for paranoia, lol. I see you (not me) have resorted to personal insults, Europeanunion. Called me paranoid, didn't you? That is indeed a bit different than making a generalized (but true) statement about liberals and internationalists. Since you are a liberal, all that you think, all of your logic, is colored through that prism. The article was locked, by an Admin, for a reason, and that reason was removal of material conservatives deem appropriate, and suggested by the Owner. If you don't like it, go to his page and take him to task for daring to be so illogical as to suggest adding it. But remember this isn't a mobocracy. Conservative thought will always prevail here. I hope you enjoy your weekend! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It is clear that we will never see eye-to-eye over this issue, or the nature of each other's arguments. I express my preference for deleting the sentence, but recognise the impossibility of that in this situation. I express my preference that the sentence be moved to a more appropriate article, and hope that this occurs. But I don't think that there's anything more to add to substantiate my views, or to be achieved by further arguing here, so I will leave the discussion, unless someone asks for my opinion on a development. I will instead continue adding information in my field of experience with less controversial articles which are not personal favourites of sysops. Thanks for your hope TK, I hope everyone has a nice day =) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 11:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::It's unfortunate that we could not come to an agreement on this matter :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:58, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, given the first few posts here, with the item being unilaterally removed without any discussion, ''and Europeanunion calling me a paranoid, and accusing me making personal attacks'', and not apologizing for either statement when asked to; did anyone here really think that was the way to accommodation or agreement? I sense a double standard here, with some people being pretty free at calling posts "trolling" when they don't agree with the POV, and yet allowing others to make personal attacks/name calling, and never saying a word. That is neither Christian, fair or conservative, is it? And this from the same people extolling their "logic" and fairness. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:41, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:I was going to concentrate on other things on CP, but I believe your previous post deserves a reply. I did not call you paranoid, but that you "rather paranoiacally" confused an objection based on legitimacy with an opinion based on where I live et cetera - the word paranoia being defined as "suspicion of others that is not based on fact". The personal attacks were the ''ad hominem'' arguments that you used - the definition of that phrase is "replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument". I do not apologise for stating that, but I am sorry if you feel it is an injustice (I do not). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So, even a statement about the thinking of liberals is branded "ad hominem" arguments now, simply because you refuse to accept what liberals think and do? I will note that an argument isn't a personal attack as you labeled it. And I am sorry, but this is not Wikipedia, so your assertion of some rule that CP doesn't have, nor endorse, is specious. This encyclopedia has hundreds, thousands of entries, cataloging liberal deceit and liberal thinking, and their attempts, like your statement above, to brand any contrary thinking to liberal tenets as an "attack". As for "paranoia", well, your own post above clearly demonstrates CP's suspicion of liberals is well-founded. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Affront ==

As someone who doesn't proscribe to any particular political ideology, but would be labeled as a liberal, I'm honestly quite offended by this article. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a systematic assault on liberalism. I understand that it's the opposing viewpoint from the reigning one here, but you have to have some level of integrity. How would you feel if I made a Liberapedia and filled the "Conservative" page with unproven remarks about how your political ideology is based exclusively on greed? You can't claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" when you have articles like this. It's just disgusting. You could go ahead and write a section on why liberal viewpoints conflict with yours, but having the entire damned page filled with hate and bigotry is horrible. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]

: You didn't cite any specific examples in the entry to support your rant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[4] -> This is simply untrue. Instead of stating a fact (liberals tend to support free speech), you're saying that liberals believe porn is their constitutional right. That's bull.
:: Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). -> What?
:: Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] -> So liberals are fascists now? That's just plain offensive.

:::It's amusing, given that Liberalism and Facisim are actually two absolute opposites on a political scale. In fact, Conserservatism is far closer to Facism than Liberalism is, so really this is just another of hilarious assertion.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)

== Typo ==
Implementation is spelled incorrectly in the lead. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:02, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== WBC is a "Liberal Organization"? ==

I usually refrain from capslocking, but WHAT? The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] is a ''liberal organization''? If the article wasn't protected, I would suspect vandalism.

A hate group that condemns homosexuality, Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, Mexicans and Americans is a ''liberal organization''? This smells like [[political identification bias]] to me - a conservative editor doesn't like WBC, so it ''must'' be liberal! --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:00, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

But WBC and Phelps hate the US military, and have made it their primary
mission to demonstrate and publicize this. Also, he was inarguably a liberal civil
rights attorney before he turned to his present fixation. Perhaps where he's taken
liberalism even justifies a new appellation... '''hyperliberal''', anyone?
--[[User:Jamesmason|Jamesmason]] 20:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

WBC as a liberal organization not just a ridiculous idea, but an outright falsehood. Any political stance by the Phelps family should be construed as being outside the general political spectrum. The idea of WBC as an even further "hyper" extension of liberalism is just as wrong. Seeing as how some fundamental tenants of being a liberal, according to this article, are supporting same-sex marriage and political correctness, the maintenance of internal consistency, if nothing else, requires an unlocking of this page and removing the WBC from this list of liberal organizations. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 15:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

Talk:Liberal

2008-08-28T14:48:27Z

Entheogenicorder:

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 

Conservatives conserve and liberals liberate. Yes, this is trite, but it is a lens through which to view various issues when you wonder "is this liberal or is this conservative?"

At the essential level of conservatism is a faith in God. This is necessarily so because all truth springs from a knowledge and understanding of God, either through special or general revelation sources. These truths are immutable laws which govern our reality, ie, everything from from the smallest particles to the galaxies at the edge of the universe. They also govern our thought life, ie, everything from morals and ethics to our sense of humor (or lack thereof). Break a law, pay the consequence. Jump off of a cliff and you land with quite a thump, whether you wish to or not. Act immorally and there is a similar effect. Laws are laws, reality is reality.

Now, conservatives wish to uphold what we have derived from an understanding of reality, things like the United States constitution for conservative politicians, the Bible for conservative theologians, free markets for conservative economists and on and on - as long as the philosophy, theory or document is based upon truth, it's all good! God made it this way, and it is good. But for the corruption of sin.

This is where liberals come in. They will liberate us from the oppression of truth! They are not constrained by essential truth, by right and wrong, by good and evil. They are constrained only by their imaginations. Ideas spring forth like wildflowers in a meadow. Using what I call "kernels of truth" these ideas are capable of maintaining substance, even gravity, under close inspection because when you deconstruct the idea, you find that kernel of truth, firmly upholding even the wackiest logic (thus illustrating, in a backhanded way, the power of truth!). The fatal error in the liberal approach is this; they cannot be bound by truth. Their vain search for power, self-fulfillment or whatever their base motive is, it is not constrained by reality, by truth. These ideas evolve into causes, cults, false religions, political platforms, etc. There is no systematic approach to truth, ideas are spun from the ether, around whatever kernel of truth will support the web of deception.

This is not to historically define conservatives or liberals as the good guys or the bad guys. Conservatives may work evil by conserving, at all costs and with brutal oppression, a flawed political system (usually spawned by liberal thinkers!). Thus the tyrants of history maintained power. Yes, it happens even amongst Christian societies - man is sinful, and will not be reflected well upon by history. Liberals have been responsible for liberating people from the dominant, oppressive regimes of the past. (This is why some say our founding fathers were liberals. They were, but when it came time to put together a viable political system of their own, they were very conservative, using political thought that grew from conservative theology). Liberals liberate, remember? Thus conservatives have found the wrong philosophy, ideology, theology to conserve and ended up working evil and liberals have found strength in truth and worked for the good. So it goes.

In our society today liberals are busy liberating us from the oppression of the Bible and the written Constitution (preferring, instead, a "living Constitution"). The liberation from Biblical principals is directed from the pit of hell itself. Political liberalism is an extension of that evil. Liberals have been so deceived because we Christians have dropped out of the soul-winning business and focussed on programming, innovative church management and self-improvement. Love IS the answer, the liberals of the 60's had it absolutely correct, their kernel of truth was more than a kernel. We can love away liberalism. Sounds simple minded, doesn't it? But we have all the power necessary to defeat what is at the root of todays liberalism. Their power is exercised only because we do not adequately militate against it. Our society depends on us, true conservatives, for survival. We are the salt. We are the light. We bring the message of redemption, God's love - and God's truth.
:: I really don't know whether I agree with that, Mark - there are plenty of Christian liberals and conservatives who don't profess any religious beliefs. In my own country the leader of the largest centre-right party says is an atheist, while the leader of the leftist Progressives is a staunch Catholic. I agree that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, but I don't think liberals are in any way evil or diabolically inspired - 200 years ago, the emancipation of slaves was seen as a liberal view. I don't think you'd find anyone today who'd say that was an act of evil. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Of course there are confused people. Christians who are political liberals will always be found to have small or very large and obvious, cracks in their theology. Currently, it is not possible to integrate Christianity into the Democratic political platform. If one is called into politics, or into working for a political cause or simply trying to vote with integrity, a Christian cannot support todays liberalism. A Democrat who claims to be Christian will inevitably be found to lack theological integrity and will be revealed as a liberal through and through.
Let me make it clear; liberals liberate and if the moral disintigration of the United States corrupts the government toward oppression, then todays conservatives will become liberators (politcal liberals), revolutionaries in the name of truth!

If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I agree. Someone must put pictures of famous liberal democrats and photoshop horns onto them. That would drive the point home.

:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

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

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It seems that Phelps supported Gore when Gore refused to support gay rights, then turned on Gore when he joined Clinton in promoting gay rights, going so far as to picket the funeral of Gore's father screaming "Your Dad's in Hell!" That doesn't strike me as liberal, just opportunist. Fred Phelps has only one issue that he cares about, which almost makes him apolitical. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but this is sort of absurd. I certainly don't want WBC to be called ''conservative'', but I don't think they're liberal either. That's just kind of silly. I don't care who he supported for president. Any organization as vehemently opposed to the sin of homosexuality as they are cannot be described as "liberal", since liberals won't even admit that homosexuality is a sin in the first place! That's kind of like calling NARAL conservative simply because they are as proud of America and her military as much as conservatives are (which I'm absolutely not saying they are, but I needed something to use as an example). It's just silly. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 02:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Whoops, I meant to say NARAL, not NARTH. Lol, NARTH ''is'' rather conservative. It's fixed now.

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Dem damn dirty libruls!!!

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::I saw that in the article and actually registered to help you guys correct it. I wouldn't want an error like that giving the site a poor reputation. Unfortunately, the page is locked. Here's the [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml link on Oxford's site] showing Professor Dawkin's title, and U.Chicago's [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama professor profile] of Obama seems to link directly to the UC press release. --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 10:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even if we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you certainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to [[liberal style]]. It fits in very nicely over there.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
::Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''Pragmatically'' what this encyclopedia needs is less obfuscation, and chipping away by internationalists, of the conservative, American, POV of Conservapedia, to make it read neutral. Moving something ''Europeans'' and liberals don't agree with, to another article, is censorship. If liberal users disagree with the conservative point of view of CP, they should give up trying to change it, and find a liberal/internationalist encyclopedia to edit, IMO. If they did, two-thirds of these needless arguments would be eliminated, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:04, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I think RossC's suggestion is a good one. Not because "calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is not a liberal trait (though no one has yet demonstrated that it is), but because (as a couple of others have said) it isn't a political or quasi-political belief like the other items in the list, and it looks out of place here. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

*Well, I added it at Andy's suggestion, made on his talk page, as the edit note clearly states, so the question as to if it belongs ''here'' is pretty moot, I think. I disagree that Schlafly hasn't demonstrated that fact, 100 times over, on the Dawkins or Obama talk pages. I do agree that it appears only liberals disagree on that. It is an argument certainly older than CP, between conservatives and liberals, and all the more a bone of contention between Europeans and United States conservatives. It boils down to a clear disagreement between ''Internationalists'' (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as ''Internationalists'' see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served. So, while wanting to acknowledge what the liberal "world view" is, it cannot, nor should it be, incorporated into CP's articles, other than to point out what those who believe in it think, and why American conservatives think they are wrong.

*Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, ''certainly are not United States conservatives'', and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals.
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion, which (again with the personal attacks) stems from the idea that just because some here are liberal, not American, internationalist, means that their objections are part of some anti-American, anti-CP, anti-conservative or anti-whatever viewpoint quest to annoy, obfuscate or slow down progress. The reason that I, and a couple of others, object to that sentence is nothing to do with opinion, just logic, and the suggestion to move it to another article is just about appropriateness. A list about conservative positions would not include anything that isn't a position (like professor-calling), same as a list on liberal positions would not. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::'''''Personal attacks?''''' On whom? Liberals in general? Some particular liberal? I demand an apology! CP is indeed an American ''conservative'' encyclopedia. You somehow seem intent on arguing forever, obstructing, until your personal POV (self-declared as logic) is accepted as the model of rationality. And you somehow mistake sticking to one's principles for paranoia, lol. I see you (not me) have resorted to personal insults, Europeanunion. Called me paranoid, didn't you? That is indeed a bit different than making a generalized (but true) statement about liberals and internationalists. Since you are a liberal, all that you think, all of your logic, is colored through that prism. The article was locked, by an Admin, for a reason, and that reason was removal of material conservatives deem appropriate, and suggested by the Owner. If you don't like it, go to his page and take him to task for daring to be so illogical as to suggest adding it. But remember this isn't a mobocracy. Conservative thought will always prevail here. I hope you enjoy your weekend! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It is clear that we will never see eye-to-eye over this issue, or the nature of each other's arguments. I express my preference for deleting the sentence, but recognise the impossibility of that in this situation. I express my preference that the sentence be moved to a more appropriate article, and hope that this occurs. But I don't think that there's anything more to add to substantiate my views, or to be achieved by further arguing here, so I will leave the discussion, unless someone asks for my opinion on a development. I will instead continue adding information in my field of experience with less controversial articles which are not personal favourites of sysops. Thanks for your hope TK, I hope everyone has a nice day =) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 11:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::It's unfortunate that we could not come to an agreement on this matter :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:58, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, given the first few posts here, with the item being unilaterally removed without any discussion, ''and Europeanunion calling me a paranoid, and accusing me making personal attacks'', and not apologizing for either statement when asked to; did anyone here really think that was the way to accommodation or agreement? I sense a double standard here, with some people being pretty free at calling posts "trolling" when they don't agree with the POV, and yet allowing others to make personal attacks/name calling, and never saying a word. That is neither Christian, fair or conservative, is it? And this from the same people extolling their "logic" and fairness. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:41, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:I was going to concentrate on other things on CP, but I believe your previous post deserves a reply. I did not call you paranoid, but that you "rather paranoiacally" confused an objection based on legitimacy with an opinion based on where I live et cetera - the word paranoia being defined as "suspicion of others that is not based on fact". The personal attacks were the ''ad hominem'' arguments that you used - the definition of that phrase is "replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument". I do not apologise for stating that, but I am sorry if you feel it is an injustice (I do not). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So, even a statement about the thinking of liberals is branded "ad hominem" arguments now, simply because you refuse to accept what liberals think and do? I will note that an argument isn't a personal attack as you labeled it. And I am sorry, but this is not Wikipedia, so your assertion of some rule that CP doesn't have, nor endorse, is specious. This encyclopedia has hundreds, thousands of entries, cataloging liberal deceit and liberal thinking, and their attempts, like your statement above, to brand any contrary thinking to liberal tenets as an "attack". As for "paranoia", well, your own post above clearly demonstrates CP's suspicion of liberals is well-founded. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Affront ==

As someone who doesn't proscribe to any particular political ideology, but would be labeled as a liberal, I'm honestly quite offended by this article. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a systematic assault on liberalism. I understand that it's the opposing viewpoint from the reigning one here, but you have to have some level of integrity. How would you feel if I made a Liberapedia and filled the "Conservative" page with unproven remarks about how your political ideology is based exclusively on greed? You can't claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" when you have articles like this. It's just disgusting. You could go ahead and write a section on why liberal viewpoints conflict with yours, but having the entire damned page filled with hate and bigotry is horrible. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]

: You didn't cite any specific examples in the entry to support your rant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[4] -> This is simply untrue. Instead of stating a fact (liberals tend to support free speech), you're saying that liberals believe porn is their constitutional right. That's bull.
:: Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). -> What?
:: Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] -> So liberals are fascists now? That's just plain offensive.

:::It's amusing, given that Liberalism and Facisim are actually two absolute opposites on a political scale. In fact, Conserservatism is far closer to Facism than Liberalism is, so really this is just another of hilarious assertion.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)

== Typo ==
Implementation is spelled incorrectly in the lead. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:02, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== WBC is a "Liberal Organization"? ==

I usually refrain from capslocking, but WHAT? The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] is a ''liberal organization''? If the article wasn't protected, I would suspect vandalism.

A hate group that condemns homosexuality, Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, Mexicans and Americans is a ''liberal organization''? This smells like [[political identification bias]] to me - a conservative editor doesn't like WBC, so it ''must'' be liberal! --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:00, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

But WBC and Phelps hate the US military, and have made it their primary
mission to demonstrate and publicize this. Also, he was inarguably a liberal civil
rights attorney before he turned to his present fixation. Perhaps where he's taken
liberalism even justifies a new appellation... '''hyperliberal''', anyone?
--[[User:Jamesmason|Jamesmason]] 20:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

WBC as a liberal organization not just a ridiculous idea, but an outright falsehood. Any political stance by the Phelps family should be construed as being outside the general political spectrum. The idea of WBC as an even further "hyper" extension of liberalism is just as wrong. Seeing as how some fundamental tenants of being a liberal, according to this article, are supporting same-sex marriage and political correctness, the maintenance of internal consistency, if nothing else, requires an unlocking of this page and removing the WBC from this list of liberal organizations. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 15:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

Talk:Essay:What's wrong with the death penalty system in the United States?

2008-08-28T14:39:54Z

Entheogenicorder:

==Logic of the article==
If I understand the article correctly, the premise is that if states executed more people, more quickly, then the death penalty would be more of a deterrent than it currently is.

First, it is hard to reconcile anyone who is a Christian could also support the death penalty (the whole what would Jesus do thing). Secondly, for a government to take the life of one of it's citizens, is the ultimate punishment...there is no reprieve. If it is found that mistakes were made in the judicial process, you can't release someone you've executed, which is why a very wide latitude is usually given to death row inmates when it comes to appeals. A government should give someone sentenced with a death penalty every legal option to ensure that they have had fair access to the entire judicial process. The fact is, that innocent people have been executed in the U.S., and it's easy to write off those cases until you're the one fighting for your life. Anyone who places any value on human life should be willing to allow someone sentenced to death every avenue possible to prove their innocence; because it's not a mistake that a government can atone for. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I'm not done with my essay yet, and I plan to address the issues of both Christianity and the death penalty AND the issue of innocence in detail.

:By the way, my final thesis is actually going to be that the US must either put up or die as far as the death penalty is. I'm leaving that open. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals==

Fundamentally, my beliefs are liberal, but in many ways I support the death penalty for those who have irrefutably taken another persons life. I find your article extremely presumptious on my beliefs, and your readiness to blame liberal influence. I think you're too ready to divide the world into [[conservative]] and [[liberal]] (as demonstrated by the encyclopedia entries), when it is clearly more complex than that.[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:35 28 august 2008 (BST)

Talk:Essay:What's wrong with the death penalty system in the United States?

2008-08-28T14:39:27Z

Entheogenicorder:

==Logic of the article==
If I understand the article correctly, the premise is that if states executed more people, more quickly, then the death penalty would be more of a deterrent than it currently is.

First, it is hard to reconcile anyone who is a Christian could also support the death penalty (the whole what would Jesus do thing). Secondly, for a government to take the life of one of it's citizens, is the ultimate punishment...there is no reprieve. If it is found that mistakes were made in the judicial process, you can't release someone you've executed, which is why a very wide latitude is usually given to death row inmates when it comes to appeals. A government should give someone sentenced with a death penalty every legal option to ensure that they have had fair access to the entire judicial process. The fact is, that innocent people have been executed in the U.S., and it's easy to write off those cases until you're the one fighting for your life. Anyone who places any value on human life should be willing to allow someone sentenced to death every avenue possible to prove their innocence; because it's not a mistake that a government can atone for. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I'm not done with my essay yet, and I plan to address the issues of both Christianity and the death penalty AND the issue of innocence in detail.

:By the way, my final thesis is actually going to be that the US must either put up or die as far as the death penalty is. I'm leaving that open. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals==

Fundamentally, my beliefs are liberal, but in many ways I support the death penalty for those who have irrefutably taken another persons life. I find your article extremely presumptious on my beliefs, and your readiness to blame liberal influence. I think you're too ready to divide the world into [[conservative]] and [[liberal]] (as demonstrated by the encyclopedia entries), when it is clearly more complex than that.[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:35 28 august 2008 (BST)

Talk:Essay:What's wrong with the death penalty system in the United States?

2008-08-28T14:38:46Z

Entheogenicorder:

==Logic of the article==
If I understand the article correctly, the premise is that if states executed more people, more quickly, then the death penalty would be more of a deterrent than it currently is.

First, it is hard to reconcile anyone who is a Christian could also support the death penalty (the whole what would Jesus do thing). Secondly, for a government to take the life of one of it's citizens, is the ultimate punishment...there is no reprieve. If it is found that mistakes were made in the judicial process, you can't release someone you've executed, which is why a very wide latitude is usually given to death row inmates when it comes to appeals. A government should give someone sentenced with a death penalty every legal option to ensure that they have had fair access to the entire judicial process. The fact is, that innocent people have been executed in the U.S., and it's easy to write off those cases until you're the one fighting for your life. Anyone who places any value on human life should be willing to allow someone sentenced to death every avenue possible to prove their innocence; because it's not a mistake that a government can atone for. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 23:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I'm not done with my essay yet, and I plan to address the issues of both Christianity and the death penalty AND the issue of innocence in detail.

:By the way, my final thesis is actually going to be that the US must either put up or die as far as the death penalty is. I'm leaving that open. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals==

I'm a liberal and in many ways I support the death penalty for those who have irrefutably taken another persons life. I find your article extremely presumptious on my beliefs, and your readiness to blame liberal influence. I think you're too ready to divide the world into [[conservative]] and [[liberal]] (as demonstrated by the encyclopedia entries), when it is clearly more complex than that.[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:35 28 august 2008 (BST)

Talk:Abortion controversy

2008-08-28T14:33:35Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Protecting birds */

Citations?

==Protecting birds==

"Some have pointed to the incongruity of US federal law which deems that the fertilized eggs of any of over 800 species of native birds warrant federal-government protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 while the fertilized egg of a human being is regarded as a disposable mass of tissue." This is taken from the article. However, this seems to be a very unfair statement. Firstly, most of the migratory birds whose eggs are protected, are protected because they are endangered species. Human beings are not an endangered species - at least not endangered by any others than ourselves - and as such, we do not require such protection. Secondly, many of these birds are protected by legislation due to human influence; that is, the birds would not be protected if there was no reason to protect them, and this reason is usually human beings hunting them. There are very few human beings who intentionally harm an unborn human child without the express permission or request of the mother (as is the case with abortion). [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:31, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Talk:Euthanasia

2008-08-28T14:32:52Z

Entheogenicorder:

Euthanasia is opposed by religious leaders because it involves people acting directly to terminate a life before its natural end, despite the suffering that a terminally ill person may be undergoing. It is held that this privilege belongs to God, whose will should prevail in the matter of suffering and death. And yet we prosecute for cruelty people who do not terminate the life of an animal who is in terminal suffering. Do we assume that God has no will concerning the suffering or life span of animals? It just strikes me as an anomaly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 09:39, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:There's a difference between [[human beings and animals]]. Humans have responsibility and free will. Suffering, and our response to it, are moral/ethical issues.

:Animals have only instinct. They have no responsibility as such, although dogs can be trained to help watch sheep. The dog has no choice whatsoever about whether or not to became a watchdog; the human being is his master.

:Each human being is his own master.

:It's not a matter of caring less: it's complicated. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book about this; see ''[[The Problem of Pain]]''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:57, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

"They are convinced that the rule of law in democratic societies prevents excesses such as the euthanasia program of Nazi Germany." [[Godwin's Law]] has been invoked, I see. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Is there not a need here for a distinction between direct action taken to end a person's life (active euthanasia) and refusal or withholding of medical care that results in death (passive euthanasia)? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:53, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Regarding the word choice in this article ==

I think the use of any adjective regarding the morality of Euthanasia displays an unbelievable bias.
If an action is truly "sinful" or "just" the facts alone should be enough to convince someone of it.
Facts, not bias should be the only thing present in this article. - Nomanuno 12:08 CST 7/30/08

== Hypocrasy ==

Many Religious leaders vehemently oppose Euphanasia, on the grounds that it interferes with the will of God. However, most patients considering Euphanasia would already be dead if it were not for the intervention of modern medical care upon the natural ailement they had suffered. Surely this is hypocrasy to say that it is wrong to save a persons life from the will of God, and then also claim it's wrong to end the same persons life? [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:31, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Talk:Abortion controversy

2008-08-28T14:24:45Z

Entheogenicorder:

Talk:Universe

2008-08-06T19:35:21Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Questions on Age */

[[Talk:Universe/Archive 1]]

I think the statement, "the common view among cosmologists is that the universe comprises more than the three dimensions that we see, and that the universe is expanding in another dimension," is incorrect.
The expansion/contraction of the universe is governed by general relativity, which is a theory about the intrinsic geometry of spacetime. As such, the universe isn't really expanding into another dimension like a balloon would, but rather there is an increase in distance between two nearby points in the universe over time, which is colloquially interpreted as expansion. I'm going ahead an changing this to avoid confusion. However, the analogy drawn in the next paragraph is a good one. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 20:50, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

==Questions on Age==

In the source material that is given as evidence that the ''measurable'' age of the universe may not truly reflect the ''actual'' age of the universe, it is stated that because clocks run faster at the top of tall buildings, this is evidence of time running faster because of the decreased effect of gravity. However, I cannot understand how the effect of gravity on a human instrument of measurement can be said to be affecting the actual time constant. That is; how do we know that it is not only our instruments which are affected by gravity, but the fabric of time itself? I find this article very interesting, though there are one or two more problems I have with it, I might need to read the book before I bring them up --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:59, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Talk:Universe

2008-08-05T16:01:19Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Questions on Age */

[[Talk:Universe/Archive 1]]

I think the statement, "the common view among cosmologists is that the universe comprises more than the three dimensions that we see, and that the universe is expanding in another dimension," is incorrect.
The expansion/contraction of the universe is governed by general relativity, which is a theory about the intrinsic geometry of spacetime. As such, the universe isn't really expanding into another dimension like a balloon would, but rather there is an increase in distance between two nearby points in the universe over time, which is colloquially interpreted as expansion. I'm going ahead an changing this to avoid confusion. However, the analogy drawn in the next paragraph is a good one. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 20:50, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

==Questions on Age==

In the source material given as evidence that the ''measurable'' age of the universe may not truly reflect the ''actual'' age of the universe, it is stated that because clocks run faster at the top of tall buildings, that this is evidence of time running faster because of the decreased effect of gravity. However, I cannot understand how the effect of gravity on a human instrument of measurement can be said to be affecting the actual time constant. That is; how do we know that it is not only our instruments which are affected by gravity, but the fabric of time itself? I find this article very interesting, though there are one or two more problems I have with it, I might need to read the book before I bring them up --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:59, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Talk:Universe

2008-08-05T16:00:35Z

Entheogenicorder:

[[Talk:Universe/Archive 1]]

I think the statement, "the common view among cosmologists is that the universe comprises more than the three dimensions that we see, and that the universe is expanding in another dimension," is incorrect.
The expansion/contraction of the universe is governed by general relativity, which is a theory about the intrinsic geometry of spacetime. As such, the universe isn't really expanding into another dimension like a balloon would, but rather there is an increase in distance between two nearby points in the universe over time, which is colloquially interpreted as expansion. I'm going ahead an changing this to avoid confusion. However, the analogy drawn in the next paragraph is a good one. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 20:50, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

==Questions on Age==

In the source material given as evidence that the ''measurable'' age of the universe may not truly reflect the ''actuall'' age of the universe, it is stated that because clocks run faster at the top of tall buildings, and that this is evidence of time running faster, because of the decreased effect of gravity. However, I cannot understand how the effect of gravity on a human instrument of measurement can be said to be affecting the actual time constant. That is; how do we know that it is not only our instruments which are affected by gravity, but the fabric of time itself? I find this article very interesting, though there are one or two more problems I have with it, I might need to read the book before I bring them up --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:59, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Capital punishment

2008-08-04T13:16:37Z

Entheogenicorder: /* United States */

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons or governments (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the [[United States]]. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref name="EU">EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[liberal]] [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000. [[Human Rights Watch]], another prominent liberal organization, does not have any recent figures.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. <ref>''The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition'' 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908</ref>

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government and the military.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

===Morality===

It has sometimes been question why 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable (see above), when 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as [[Christian]] <ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm</ref>. This has led to the suggestion by some that this is [[hypocrasy]], and that [[Christian]] Americans should not advocate the death penalty, as to do so is against the code of the Bible, and immoral <ref>http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3524</ref>.

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

===European Union===
The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 [[European Union]] member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in [[Europe]] (only [[Belarus]] and [[Kazakhstan]] still practise it, and [[Russia]] has had an effective moratorium since 1996).<ref>http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)</ref> The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU.<ref name="EU" /> EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)
# Rebellious Sons ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Capital punishment

2008-08-04T13:15:38Z

Entheogenicorder: /* United States */

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons or governments (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the [[United States]]. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref name="EU">EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[liberal]] [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000. [[Human Rights Watch]], another prominent liberal organization, does not have any recent figures.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. <ref>''The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition'' 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908</ref>

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government and the military.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

:It has sometimes been question why 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable (see above), when 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as [[Christian]] <ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm</ref>. This has led to the suggestion by some that this is [[hypocrasy]], and that [[Christian]] Americans should not advocate the death penalty <ref>http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3524</ref>.

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

===European Union===
The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 [[European Union]] member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in [[Europe]] (only [[Belarus]] and [[Kazakhstan]] still practise it, and [[Russia]] has had an effective moratorium since 1996).<ref>http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)</ref> The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU.<ref name="EU" /> EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)
# Rebellious Sons ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Capital punishment

2008-08-04T13:14:10Z

Entheogenicorder: /* United States */

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons or governments (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the [[United States]]. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref name="EU">EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[liberal]] [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000. [[Human Rights Watch]], another prominent liberal organization, does not have any recent figures.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. <ref>''The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition'' 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908</ref>

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government and the military.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

:It has sometimes been question why 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable (see above), when 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as [[Christian]] <ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm<ref>.
This has led to the suggestion by some that this is [[hypocrasy]], and that [[Christian]] Americans should not advocate the death penalty <ref>http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3524<ref/>.

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

===European Union===
The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 [[European Union]] member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in [[Europe]] (only [[Belarus]] and [[Kazakhstan]] still practise it, and [[Russia]] has had an effective moratorium since 1996).<ref>http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)</ref> The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU.<ref name="EU" /> EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)
# Rebellious Sons ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

User:Entheogenicorder

2008-08-04T13:12:44Z

Entheogenicorder: /* Hi */

==Hi==

Hi there, I've only been on this side a brief time, but I've managed to rile these guys pretty easily, with 'disruptive editing'. That isn't what I'm here for, I only want to point out flaws in unfounded assertions.

I saw this hilarious article saying that evolutionist claims about the age of the dinosaurs is flawed because of a lack of evidence! If that isn't the most easy argument to turn round; there is no irrefutable concrete evidence of God existing and even less that the Bible is his exact words. Personally, I take my chances with the theory that makes logical sense and which can help us better understand and appreciate the world around us. Then maybe I'll take a wild stab at how it got here. That's one reason I signed up for a password!

Also, have you ever wondered, if there was actually a God, 'up there' in heaven, would he not be too consumed with the idea and absorbed in the question of how he came into existence, to ever have created the Earth? If we are constantly philosophizing about our own existence, then a being intelligent enough to create us would surely be even more perplexed about his own existence... Or another equally as perplexing question is, if God created man, then how did God come to be? Did someone - an even bigger God - create Him?

Capital punishment

2008-07-16T16:05:47Z

Entheogenicorder: /* United States */

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons or governments (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the [[United States]]. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref name="EU">EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[liberal]] [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000. [[Human Rights Watch]], another prominent liberal organization, does not have any recent figures.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. <ref>''The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition'' 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908</ref>

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government and the military.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

:It has sometimes been question why 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable (see above), when 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as [[Christian]] <ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm<ref>.
This has led to the suggestion by some that this is [[hypocrasy]], and that [[Christian]] Americans should not advocate the death penalty <ref>http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3524<ref/>.

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

===European Union===
The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 [[European Union]] member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in [[Europe]] (only [[Belarus]] and [[Kazakhstan]] still practise it, and [[Russia]] has had an effective moratorium since 1996).<ref>http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)</ref> The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU.<ref name="EU" /> EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)
# Rebellious Sons ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Capital punishment

2008-07-16T16:04:39Z

Entheogenicorder: /* United States */

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons or governments (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the [[United States]]. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref name="EU">EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[liberal]] [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000. [[Human Rights Watch]], another prominent liberal organization, does not have any recent figures.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. <ref>''The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition'' 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908</ref>

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government and the military.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

:It has sometimes been question why 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable (see above), when 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as [[Christian]] <ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm<ref>.

This has led to the suggestion by some that this is hypocrasy, and that Christian Americans should not advocate the death penalty <ref>http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3524<ref/>

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

===European Union===
The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 [[European Union]] member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in [[Europe]] (only [[Belarus]] and [[Kazakhstan]] still practise it, and [[Russia]] has had an effective moratorium since 1996).<ref>http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)</ref> The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU.<ref name="EU" /> EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)
# Rebellious Sons ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]