<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=FrederickT</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=FrederickT"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/FrederickT"/>
	<updated>2026-10-05T15:15:25Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rio_Grande&amp;diff=869857</id>
		<title>Rio Grande</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rio_Grande&amp;diff=869857"/>
		<updated>2011-05-17T15:41:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: missing space&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The 1,865 mile long (3,033 km) '''Rio Grande''' ('great or big river') is one of the longest rivers in [[North America]]. The river flows south from the San Juan Mountains in southwest [[Colorado]] to southwest [[Texas]], then flows southeast, with the remaining 1,250 miles of the river forming the border between the [[United States]] and [[Mexico]]. The river empties into the [[Gulf of Mexico]] near Brownsville, [[Texas]], and Matamoros, Mexico. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.nps.gov/ &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.newmexico.org &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The river has long been used for [[irrigation]] of farmlands. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.unm.edu &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
The [[National Park Service]] working under the U.S. Department of &lt;br /&gt;
the Interior is the government agency responsible for overseeing the river and maintaining the lands around the river. &lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[New Mexico]], [[Albuquerque]], [[Santa Fe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Rivers]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ada_Lovelace&amp;diff=869855</id>
		<title>Ada Lovelace</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ada_Lovelace&amp;diff=869855"/>
		<updated>2011-05-17T15:33:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: fixed layout&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Ada 1838.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Ada Lovelace''' (1815-1852) was a British mathematician involved in the extremely early history of computers, long before the &amp;quot;modern era&amp;quot; of actual construction of working computers.  She worked with [[Charles Babbage]] on an extremely visionary, completely mechanical, computer called the &amp;quot;analytical engine&amp;quot;.  It was never built, because Babbage's design was way ahead of its time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with Babbage and others, she made notes for programming the proposed computer, and she became famous in the modern era for her description of the &amp;quot;classic recurrence relation for computing Bernoulli numbers&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/lovelace.html Augusta Ada Byron (1815-1852)] - Ryan Stansifer, Associate Professor - Department of Computer Sciences - Florida Institute of Technology&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; used by [[Jakob Bernoulli]]. On this basis, feminists eager to promote [[women in science]] decided to dub her &amp;quot;the first computer programmer&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sciam&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Ada_and_the_First_Computer.pdf Scientific American, May 1999, pp76]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/ada-bio.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/lovelace.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  This claim arises from the fact that she was first to publish a paper (in 1843) containing a mathematical algorithm ''encoded for the purpose of being executed by an automatically controlled digital computer''.  Her program calculated [[Bernoulli numbers]].  That is, she wrote the first published, surviving computer program designed to solve a real problem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the issue is not clear-cut, because there are different opinions about what constitutes a &amp;quot;program&amp;quot; and what constitutes a &amp;quot;computer&amp;quot;.  Perhaps the main objection is that the computer for which her program was written was never built, so her program did not actually run.  Ada had to write the algorithm on paper, rather than at a keypunch or computer terminal, of course.  But, to use modern terminology, she actually &amp;quot;wrote code&amp;quot;.  Also, since the term &amp;quot;program&amp;quot; had not been coined, she described her algorithm as a &amp;quot;plan&amp;quot;.  In the 20th century, the program was carefully analyzed and simulated, and found to have a minor &amp;quot;bug&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early Life==&lt;br /&gt;
She was the only legitimate child of of the famous British poet [[George Gordon, Lord Byron|Lord Byron]], but he abandoned her and her mother before her first birthday.  She was raised by her mother.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She was born Augusta Ada Byron, and called by her middle name as a child.  She married William King, who later became Earl of Lovelace, making her &amp;quot;Countess of Lovelace&amp;quot;.  She has been called Augusta Ada, Augusta Ada Byron, Augusta Ada Lovelace, Ada Lovelace, Ada King, or just Ada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October of 1842 Luigi Federico Menabrea (1809-1896), an Italian professor of machanics at University of Turin (and later premier of the Kingdom of Italy), published a paper describing the function and theory of Babbage's Analytical Engine.  Ada translated the paper from French to English and added her own extensive comments. (See ''Science and Reform, Selected Works of Charles Babbage'' by Anthony Hyman.) This was published in 1843 and impressed Babbage, for it included, as Babbage himself wrote,&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|some complicated programs of her own, the most complex of these being one to calculate the sequence of Bernoulli numbers.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==What did Ada's Bernoulli program look like?==&lt;br /&gt;
The program, and detailed technical commentary, appeared in a paper &amp;quot;Sketch of the Analytical Engine Invented by Charles Babbage&amp;quot; that Ada wrote in 1843.  The program itself has been reproduced in the &amp;quot;sidebar&amp;quot; on page 79&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sciam&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
First there is a list of the six input and output variables that are used:  V1, V2, V3, V21, V22 and V23.  And the temporary variables V4 through V13.  In modern terminology in a strongly typed language such as C++, we would write something like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
   int V1, V2, V3;         // inputs&lt;br /&gt;
   int V21, V22, V23;      // outputs&lt;br /&gt;
   int V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10, V11, V12, V13;   // temps&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the start of the program, she gives initialization of V1=1, V2=2, and V3=N.  (Modern computers often have &amp;quot;immediate&amp;quot; instructions to handle constants without using up registers.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then she lists the 23 instructions, giving their source and destination registers, opcodes, and commentary on the progress of the program.  The first 5 intructions, for example, are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
   V4=V5=V6 = V2 * V3;       // Get 2N.  The machine allowed multiple destination registers.&lt;br /&gt;
   V4 = V4 - V1;             // Get 2N-1.&lt;br /&gt;
   V5 = V5 + V1;             // Get 2N+1.&lt;br /&gt;
   V11 = V4 / V5;            // Get (2N-1)/(2N+1).&lt;br /&gt;
   V11 = V12 / V2;           // Get (1/2) * (2N-1)/(2N+1).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(She used the old-fashioned multiply and divide signs &amp;quot;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\times&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\div&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;quot;.  These seem quaint by today's standards, but they were the symbols that people used at the time.  Neither the 026 keypunch nor the ASCII character set had been invented.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She used two loops&amp;amp;mdash;see the other sidebar on page 78.  V10 is the outer loop counter.  The loop consists of instructions 13 to 23.  It continues until V10 counts down to 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Was it a computer?==&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;analytical engine&amp;quot; was so far ahead of its time that one might be tempted to call it just a &amp;quot;visionary idea&amp;quot;.  The technology of the time was nowhere near capable of building it.  Even the much-less-ambitious &amp;quot;difference engine&amp;quot; was beyond the technology of the day&amp;amp;mdash;making the counters do arithmetic reliably required very careful machining of the parts.  Only a small partial prototype of the difference engine was built in Babbage's lifetime.  But Babbage clearly knew what he wanted&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;That Babbage knew what he was doing is attested to by the fact that his full difference engine was finally constructed in 1991 (the bicentennial of Babbage's birth) and is on display at the London Science Museum.  Babbage's original plans were almost exactly correct.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  His vision of a calculating device that can perform operations under control of a &amp;quot;program&amp;quot; punched into cards, and that makes control decisions based on the data resulting from the calculation steps, was incredibly prescient.  It was exactly the principle used in modern computers.  Lovelace understood that vision, and even extended it to the idea that computers might perform tasks beyond purely numerical ones, such as composing music.  The fact that the analytical engine was mechanical rather than electronic did not make it any less a computer.  It just made it harder to build.  It took about 100 years for the field of electrical engineering to make computers such as that envisioned by Babbage realizable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Was it a RISC machine or a CISC machine?==&lt;br /&gt;
From looking at Ada's program for Bernoulli polynomials, it is clear that the machine did its calculation by manipulating numbers in specific registers.  It did not have any &amp;quot;random access memory&amp;quot; that could be addressed.  CISC machines address memory in their operation instructions, while RISC machines operate on registers, loading and storing memory locations only with specific instructions.  So the analytical engine would have to be classified as a RISC machine in that sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Was Ada's program a real program, or just a &amp;quot;description of an algorithm&amp;quot;?==&lt;br /&gt;
It is impossible to answer this to everyone's satisfaction.  She certainly didn't punch it on cards or type it into a computer terminal.  (She might conceivably have punched it onto cards if Babbage had made his design sufficiently concrete as to assign binary opcodes, but he never got anywhere near that far.)  Since it never ran on a computer in the form in which she wrote it, it could be argued that it wasn't a program, but was merely an algorithm.  But, whatever it was, it was written in the peculiarly stilted language of computer machine code.  That is, the numbers that it was manipulating were assigned to specific registers.  As the iteration loop cycled around, those registers were overwritten with new values.  That is not the way ordinary mathematical algorithms are expressed.  They are expressed in terms of more abstract formulas and recurrences.  In Ada's case, the formulas were broken down into individual operations, manipulating specific registers that she specified.  The recurrence was specified by manipulating a count register and testing whether it had reached zero.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Algorithms like Euclid's algorithm or Heron's formula, or even integration techniques or the description of the factorial function, are not described that way unless one is writing a computer program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Algorithms&amp;quot; for calculating Bernoulli numbers had been known for some time.  But she wrote this &amp;quot;algorithm&amp;quot; in the form of ''specifically realizable numerical operations'' that she (naively, Babbage's design was ''far'' beyond what the technology of the day would have provided) believed the analytical engine could have done.  And she used the ''specific ability of a calculating device to make control decisions based on the data''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ada suggested to Babbage writing a plan for how the engine might calculate Bernoulli numbers. This plan, is now regarded as the first &amp;quot;computer program.&amp;quot; [http://www.well.com/user/adatoole/bio.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Was Ada really first?  Were the Bernoulli notes the first program?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision to dub Ada Lovelace the [[first computer programmer]] ignores the historical fact that &lt;br /&gt;
*Babbage and others also had written “programs” for the never completed Analytical Engine. [http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/lovelace.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, she was not the sole author of the notes on calculating [[Bernoulli numbers]]. The notes were originally written by another person, and she translated these and expanded upon them. This would make her a co-author of the notes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are those who claim &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/babbage/ada.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that Babbage himself, or an assistant of his, or perhaps some of his sons, must have written &amp;quot;programs&amp;quot; before Ada did.  Issues like this arise from time to time, perhaps most notably in the &amp;quot;calculus war&amp;quot; between Newton and Leibniz, or the &amp;quot;non-Euclidean geometry war&amp;quot; among Gauss, Bolyai, and Lobachevsky.  The scientific community generally gives great weight to the act of publishing one's work.  If these other people wrote programs before Ada did, they don't seem to have published them, and they are lost.  It is not known what problems these earlier programs might have been solving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She was certainly one of the pioneers of software development, but whether she was the first person to write notes for an algorithm that a machine could carry out is not certain. Nor is there wide agreement on whether such notes constitute an actual [[computer program]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy==&lt;br /&gt;
Some people, perhaps motivated by misdirected passion over the issue of feminism, take an unexpectedly strong stand in favor of, or against, the idea that she was the world's first computer programmer.  What one person did 170 years ago really has nothing to do with contemporary social issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The [[ADA (computer language)|ADA]] programming language==&lt;br /&gt;
Starting in the 1970's, a project was undertaken by the U.S. Department of Defense to find one high-level language to be used for all DoD software, replacing the hundreds of languages then in use.  After much evaluation work, the winning language (called &amp;quot;green&amp;quot; in the evaluation process) was named ADA in Ada Lovelace's honor.  Its goal of replacing all the previous languages has not been met, partly because interoperability considerations have changed the way software is put together, relative to the way things were done in the 1970's.  The ADA language has had less than complete acceptance in the military, and is not widely used in the civilian sector.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|1}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further Reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/03/16feature2.html Repurposing Ada] - contains several denials (including one by a biographer) that her &amp;quot;Notes&amp;quot; were a [[computer program]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html Menabrea's Sketch and Ada's Notes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Lovelace, Ada}} &lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Women]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Awake(album)&amp;diff=868961</id>
		<title>Awake(album)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Awake(album)&amp;diff=868961"/>
		<updated>2011-05-14T18:57:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{merge|Skillet}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Awake''' is the 7th studio album released by Christian rock group [[Skillet]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Songs''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Hero''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Monster''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Don't Wake Me''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Awake And Alive''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''One Day Too Late''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''It's Not Me It's You''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Should've When You Could've''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Believe''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Forgiven''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Sometimes''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Never Surrender''&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Lucy''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Albums]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mechanics&amp;diff=868958</id>
		<title>Talk:Quantum mechanics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mechanics&amp;diff=868958"/>
		<updated>2011-05-14T18:54:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: /* Quantum mechanics and God */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Wave Function==&lt;br /&gt;
I edited the Collapse of the Wave Function segment. I found it offensively wrong in many respects. I understand there is a need to make certain things &amp;quot;accessible&amp;quot; to people. However there is more of a need to present truthful information regardless of its accessibility. I do not post anything that I could not back up with sources. If you feel the need to change what I say make sure that you know what you're talking about because as it stands right now the &amp;quot;corrected&amp;quot; version of the segment has almost no value of worth. The explanation of a wave function ONLY occurs in a special example. I decided to take a look at this website after seeing it aired on the &amp;quot;Colbert Report&amp;quot; and am offended at the lack of some information, and the bastardization of what was once truthful information. Honestly you should not even begin to think to alter this page if you have not taken a course in Quantum that was taught by a PhD. in the field. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Hello, and thanks for joining!  I actually have taken a short course in quantum mechanics last year, but I very well might be remembering it wrongly.  Could you please explain what part of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&amp;amp;diff=728472&amp;amp;oldid=728463 my last edit] is wrong?  I was trying to restore the specific analysis of what the position function is, and the consequence:  that there's a nonzero chance the particle can jump across the room or the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:And if you just think the organization can be improved, or there's more stuff we need to talk about, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I came to this website a month and a half ago myself, and I'm still shocked by how much ground we still have to cover.  Please help us improve!  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:01, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No problem. To start with you said that the particles move randomly. We don't know that. Part of current debate in quantum is whether the theory we have no complete or not. As you can imagine it isn't easily accepted that we &amp;quot;just can't know&amp;quot; the position of the particle so many people claim that as of now, quantum is incomplete. If this is so then it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain. This mistake isn't so much an error in knowledge as much as it is too bold of a statement to make.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In your next sentence, its not that the position isn't described as a point, but that it is meaningless to say it as such. This is an important distinction to make. If it just isn't described that way but has meaning, then it COULD be described that way but for reasons unknown to the reader, it isn't. If it is a meaningless value then there is no point in talking about it as such. It is imperative to explain why things are the way they and not just say &amp;quot;oh well its not done that way&amp;quot; WHY IS IT SO? (most important thing you can ask yourself as you write your thesis)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have much of a problem with your description of the wave function presented, I feel it would be much more useful to talk about the particle in a box problem as it is a good introductory point for the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't really like the way you say &amp;quot;jumps&amp;quot;. In my mind it implies that &amp;quot;it was here but now its way over there&amp;quot;. All this wave function is telling you is that if you look everywhere you will find the particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The wave function is a prediction of averages. In other words, (disregarding collapsing) if you measured the particle's position an infinite number of times,  you would find that 99% of the time it would be in that two angstrom range while the other 1 percent of the time its elsewhere. The particle doesn't &amp;quot;jump&amp;quot; it just wasn't where you would have expected to find it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The collapsing of the wave function is a consequence of measurement, not the reason for it. It mearly says, if you measure it then you know about where the particle is, so if you measured it again immediately it would be around that location. Once again it doesn't &amp;quot;jump&amp;quot; away on its own. In fact if you continuously measure the particle with very little time between measurements the wave function will stay collapsed as long as you're measuring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your final statement is a bit redundant and a little not true. I explained why the wave function collapses. However saying how it will collapse before measurement is about the same as saying &amp;quot;the particle is right here&amp;quot; its meaningless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Keep in mind that I am a little flustered about all of this because I came from the page on magnetism where they described it as &amp;quot;a component of the electromagnetic force&amp;quot;. While a lot of what you said wasn't &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot; it also wasn't true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for explaining all this.  Thanks for reminding me about the difference between &amp;quot;random&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;currently inexplicable&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;we don't do it&amp;quot; v. &amp;quot;it's meaningless,&amp;quot; and for explaining about the wavefunction staying collapsed if you measure a short while afterward - I hadn't heard that last point before.  I just edited the page to clarify some of what you said and add the example of the particle in a finite box; I'd rather not put it in an infinite box myself as I don't quite remember the math.  If you'd like to do that, I'd greatly appreciate it!&lt;br /&gt;
:But I don't think your wording that &amp;quot;predicting how and where the wave function will collapse is a meaningless endeavor,&amp;quot; is quite accurate.  Isn't that the same as &amp;quot;it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
:(By the way, you can automatically sign your posts with four tildas (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;), and indent with a colon at the start of the line.)   --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think there is much of a reason behind predicting the collapse of a wave function or discussing it. Like I said the collapse of a wave function is a consequence of measurement and as we know measurement changes what we're measuring. So in a way the collapse of a wave function only occurs when you are no longer looking at what you wanted to look at. (I wish there was a better way to say that). &lt;br /&gt;
BTW thanks for the tilda thing I was trying to figure that out. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Side note, the problem you have presented is not a finite box as the wave function does not look like that for a finite box. The math for a finite box is much more complicated than that for the infinite box. I think you are confusing finite and inifinte with the length of the box instead of the depth of the box. The idea with the infinite box is that there is an infinite potential (or walls) at the side of the box while with the finite box does not have an infinite potential (looks like a well). The problem you seem to have posted is a free particle which is still a difficult problem. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also strongly recommend against talking about tunneling without talking about the math behind it. As it stands now your introduction to tunneling is confusing. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myself, I think it's better to explain or mention the consequences of math (e.g. tunneling) without the math itself than to not mention them at all.  But, of course, it's better to have both.  By all means, when you've got the time, please add the math!  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Explanation of tunneling can only come about after the explanation of the problem. I read your user page and understand what you're trying to do. But you have to accept the responsibility that in order to present knowledge you have to present why it is. Why is tunneling allowed, how is it realized? These are things that you have to answer if you want it up there. Myself I feel compelled to let the truth about things be known. I have a growing concern after visiting pages on this site that people are making up wildly outrageous claims that don't seem to be trolls. For example on your nuclear fusion site someone said &amp;quot;stars are stable&amp;quot;. Your(the site's not your personally I kinda like you) entire page on nuclear power is either erroneous or just unnecessary. You seem to have an interest in keeping together the scientific pages. If this is the case I strongly urge you to post math, reason, experiments. How is it we know a wave function is correct? Think about it, if things aren't exactly in one particular position, why does the universe work? There are a lot of gaps in knowledge here that lead me to believe this is an mission of lunacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is scientifically reckless to just present results. What you are doing is telling people to just believe what you say is true. If science were done in this fashion where would we be as a society? I could just say, &amp;quot;Hey cold things get colder for no reason, just believe me.&amp;quot; If this was accepted it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Claims need proof. Results need proof. Consequences of things need math. With every fiber of my being I believe you are doing your race a disservice by simply presenting quantum mechanics as something that should be accepted.(Make no mistake that is what is happening here). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand the idea that this site is a safe-haven from liberal bias, but without references, without proof, without any reason for its claims, this site is worthless. Try and see this from my perspective. You say that this is a &amp;quot;trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; yet you post information. You also leave out information that you do not know about. This is a dangerous practice and it is morally and ethically wrong to say you are trustworthy without offering the full truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honestly, with all that said I like you Evan.(anyone who has taken and not failed a course in quantum obviously has some intelligence)But if you are going to walk down the scientific path, you have to make sure that you are thorough and complete. Otherwise what you are saying is harmful. You may think that my concern is unfounded but I promise you, it is very very dangerous just presenting claims and having people believe them to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also on not of the math, I have absolutely no idea how to type it up, if you want me to send it to you in some other way so you can type it up (or better review your work on these problems) I would be more than happy to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for the long windedness of this but the sharing of knowledge, while noble, is dangerous if not done properly. I simply fear that if we continue in this fashion, physics, all its laws and findings, will only be a field of debate rather than that of true science. Science is based on the principle that you must prove something for it to be true. I believe that this should hold true in the communication of scientific ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 20:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Older stuff==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have reinstated the change that had been made by Ssandoval, regarding the removal of &amp;quot;first order kinetics&amp;quot;.  It's true that he was an obvious vandal in other pages (yes, I looked around).  It's also true that calling it an &amp;quot;idiotic implication&amp;quot; was excessive, and that his next &amp;quot;sentence&amp;quot; had no verb and contained a reference to a &amp;quot;negative amount&amp;quot; that I can't figure out.  However, the chemical concept of &amp;quot;first order kinetics&amp;quot; isn't applicable here.  Not idiotic, but wrong nonetheless.  First order kinetics refers to a reaction rate ''per unit volume'' being proportional to the ''concentration'' of the reactants.  In radioactivity the rate depends only on the amount of material.  The exponential decay nevertheless follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please look before reverting.  [[User:CScience|CScience]] 14:25, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I deleted the jargon comment, although I do agree that it is jargon, and the comment is duly noted. Again, I wish to emphasize that the subject of quantum mechanics is inherently a college-level subject, and the language I used should be accessible to a student with a college level understanding of calculus and linear algebra. --[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 22:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let's not undo things hastily without discussing them first. There were some good things there. Why do you want to remove them?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:00, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I left an edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm no genius, but it all made sense to me....[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The postulates section could maybe have some preface or qualifying sentences to make it a bit easier for people without a background in physics to understand, but I could understand the article just fine as it was.  Even [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman Richard Feynman] said that nobody truly understood quantum mechanics; however just because a concept is confusing, counterintuitive, or requires some previous knowledge to be explained, does not mean it should removed or simplified. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 16:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must take issue with the sentence: as a result of the wave nature of an electron, the position of the electron can never precisely be known. First of all, the more correct statement is that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. And this has nothing to do with the fact that an electron behaves like a wave. Rather, it results from the fact that the position and momentum operators do not commute with each other. For an example at the other end of the spectrum, the energy and spin-z operators DO commute with each other, and for this reason one can indeed simultaneously know the energy and spin of an electron.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 19:52, 19 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, thank you for clarifying the point that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. This has been poorly stated in many places, and is really misleading. It's hard enough to understand physics; let's not make it any harder. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 20:34, 19 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm new here, so I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly.  Should I propose edits on the talk page and then make them on the main page?  There are some things stated on this subject on the front page that are incorrect (although not completely wrong), and I would like to correct that.  I'm hoping to eventually help out in other subjects here, but for now will contribute to what I know best.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first edit would be on the uncertainty position - it states that position and velocity can not both be simultaneously known to within arbitrary position.  The current statement is about velocity only.  For applications of quantum mechanics, I think we should talk about more than just radioactive decay - I would like to add a link on transistors, as they seem a far more relevant application of QM in people's daily lives.  Also, radioactive decay is often thrown about in a cartoonish way without fully understanding it - which is why things like carbon dating done by evolutionists are so blindly accepted by the public, when the science to make a real measurement is actually quite complicated.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:CGriswald|CGriswald]] 12:51, 13 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a year, this page remains woefully incomplete. Perhaps discrediting the theory of relativity is a greater priority for the physics contributions at Conservapedia. To add a little actual content to this page, someone should write sections on the following topics: (1) The photo-electric effect. (2) The classical vs quantum understanding of black-body radiation. (3) The double-slit experiment. (4) The Stern-Gerlach experiment.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:19, 25 May 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I added a section about the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. It is very difficult to express them without mathematics and with a minimum of specialized language, but I did my best. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 23:12, 13 August 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quantum mechanics and God ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It occurred to me during a discussion that God's omniscience has some interesting implications when discussing quantum mechanics.  The question being discussed had to do with Calvinism, and with whether God's omniscience invariably leads to predestined salvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schrodinger's thought experiment popped immediately into my mind, and it occurred to me that, if the Copenhagen interpretation is accurate, God's omniscience makes Schrodinger's Cat an impossibility: the superposition of states cannot be unresolved, and the waveform cannot be uncollapsed, because there is an omnipresent observer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This would actually be in keeping with Schrodinger's views; he did not, after all, believe that it was possible for a cat to be both alive and dead at the same time.  Schrodinger's Cat was an effort to point out the absurdity that results from a strict acceptance of the Copenhagen Interpretation.  He pointed this out in an exchange with Einstein, saying that one &amp;quot;cannot get around the assumption of reality&amp;quot;--that is, reality must have a definite state, even if that state is (as of yet) undetermined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It occurs to me that the acceptance of an omniscient observer resolves a great many paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics, and lends credence to the relational interpretation--in which scenario the waveform would appear uncollapsed to us, while God would observe it as collapsed.  It would also suggest that objective collapse theory is a misinterpretation; collapse DOES occur irrespective of our observations, but not irrespective of ANY observation.  The ENVIRONMENT does not observe the cat; the CREATOR of the environment observes the cat (or the particle)--and, in so doing, collapses the waveform and resolves the superposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I will admit that my understanding of these issues is a layman's, and not thorough.  I know there are other contributors here with a much deeper understanding of quantum mechanics, and perhaps they can correct any misperceptions and misunderstandings in my above scenario.   --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:14, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's incredibly insightful ... an interpretation I've never heard before in all the years I've studied and reviewed [[quantum mechanics]].  I'd like to consider this further before responding in detail.  Note, however, that there is some biblical basis for questioning the view that God is omniscient.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:58, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If God is omniscient then surely he doesn't need to observe. He would simply ''know''. Quantum mechanics is a theory about how reality presents itself to humans. Surely God is not subject to the restrictions of quantum mechanics (or any other physical theory), and there is no way for us to know how God &amp;quot;experiences&amp;quot; (if that is even an appropriate term) reality. --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 12:06, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Your statement includes several assumptions that are worth considering first.  Does God want to know everything?  There are several instances in the Old Testament where God did not seem to automatically know the answer, but had to inquire to find out.  Also, even if God knows everything, that would still not rule out a possible role for chance.  Humans know everything about the physics of a simple coin, but still don't know the outcome of a coin toss until they look.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::But what is chance for us is not necessarily chance for God. God is larger than humans, isn't he? Unfathomably large, too large for us to understand. --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 13:30, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::God is unfathomable to us, indeed, but why assume he wants to know everything?  Again, there are very clear passages in the Old Testament where God inquired to find something out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Maybe that explains why we haven't heard from him in 2000 years... --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 14:51, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Seriously, the article [[God]] attributes omniscience and omnipotence to him. Surely, true faith must go along with that? --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 14:54, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mechanics&amp;diff=868957</id>
		<title>Talk:Quantum mechanics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mechanics&amp;diff=868957"/>
		<updated>2011-05-14T18:51:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: /* Quantum mechanics and God */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Wave Function==&lt;br /&gt;
I edited the Collapse of the Wave Function segment. I found it offensively wrong in many respects. I understand there is a need to make certain things &amp;quot;accessible&amp;quot; to people. However there is more of a need to present truthful information regardless of its accessibility. I do not post anything that I could not back up with sources. If you feel the need to change what I say make sure that you know what you're talking about because as it stands right now the &amp;quot;corrected&amp;quot; version of the segment has almost no value of worth. The explanation of a wave function ONLY occurs in a special example. I decided to take a look at this website after seeing it aired on the &amp;quot;Colbert Report&amp;quot; and am offended at the lack of some information, and the bastardization of what was once truthful information. Honestly you should not even begin to think to alter this page if you have not taken a course in Quantum that was taught by a PhD. in the field. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Hello, and thanks for joining!  I actually have taken a short course in quantum mechanics last year, but I very well might be remembering it wrongly.  Could you please explain what part of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&amp;amp;diff=728472&amp;amp;oldid=728463 my last edit] is wrong?  I was trying to restore the specific analysis of what the position function is, and the consequence:  that there's a nonzero chance the particle can jump across the room or the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:And if you just think the organization can be improved, or there's more stuff we need to talk about, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I came to this website a month and a half ago myself, and I'm still shocked by how much ground we still have to cover.  Please help us improve!  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:01, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No problem. To start with you said that the particles move randomly. We don't know that. Part of current debate in quantum is whether the theory we have no complete or not. As you can imagine it isn't easily accepted that we &amp;quot;just can't know&amp;quot; the position of the particle so many people claim that as of now, quantum is incomplete. If this is so then it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain. This mistake isn't so much an error in knowledge as much as it is too bold of a statement to make.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In your next sentence, its not that the position isn't described as a point, but that it is meaningless to say it as such. This is an important distinction to make. If it just isn't described that way but has meaning, then it COULD be described that way but for reasons unknown to the reader, it isn't. If it is a meaningless value then there is no point in talking about it as such. It is imperative to explain why things are the way they and not just say &amp;quot;oh well its not done that way&amp;quot; WHY IS IT SO? (most important thing you can ask yourself as you write your thesis)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have much of a problem with your description of the wave function presented, I feel it would be much more useful to talk about the particle in a box problem as it is a good introductory point for the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't really like the way you say &amp;quot;jumps&amp;quot;. In my mind it implies that &amp;quot;it was here but now its way over there&amp;quot;. All this wave function is telling you is that if you look everywhere you will find the particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The wave function is a prediction of averages. In other words, (disregarding collapsing) if you measured the particle's position an infinite number of times,  you would find that 99% of the time it would be in that two angstrom range while the other 1 percent of the time its elsewhere. The particle doesn't &amp;quot;jump&amp;quot; it just wasn't where you would have expected to find it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The collapsing of the wave function is a consequence of measurement, not the reason for it. It mearly says, if you measure it then you know about where the particle is, so if you measured it again immediately it would be around that location. Once again it doesn't &amp;quot;jump&amp;quot; away on its own. In fact if you continuously measure the particle with very little time between measurements the wave function will stay collapsed as long as you're measuring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your final statement is a bit redundant and a little not true. I explained why the wave function collapses. However saying how it will collapse before measurement is about the same as saying &amp;quot;the particle is right here&amp;quot; its meaningless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Keep in mind that I am a little flustered about all of this because I came from the page on magnetism where they described it as &amp;quot;a component of the electromagnetic force&amp;quot;. While a lot of what you said wasn't &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot; it also wasn't true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for explaining all this.  Thanks for reminding me about the difference between &amp;quot;random&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;currently inexplicable&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;we don't do it&amp;quot; v. &amp;quot;it's meaningless,&amp;quot; and for explaining about the wavefunction staying collapsed if you measure a short while afterward - I hadn't heard that last point before.  I just edited the page to clarify some of what you said and add the example of the particle in a finite box; I'd rather not put it in an infinite box myself as I don't quite remember the math.  If you'd like to do that, I'd greatly appreciate it!&lt;br /&gt;
:But I don't think your wording that &amp;quot;predicting how and where the wave function will collapse is a meaningless endeavor,&amp;quot; is quite accurate.  Isn't that the same as &amp;quot;it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
:(By the way, you can automatically sign your posts with four tildas (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;), and indent with a colon at the start of the line.)   --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think there is much of a reason behind predicting the collapse of a wave function or discussing it. Like I said the collapse of a wave function is a consequence of measurement and as we know measurement changes what we're measuring. So in a way the collapse of a wave function only occurs when you are no longer looking at what you wanted to look at. (I wish there was a better way to say that). &lt;br /&gt;
BTW thanks for the tilda thing I was trying to figure that out. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Side note, the problem you have presented is not a finite box as the wave function does not look like that for a finite box. The math for a finite box is much more complicated than that for the infinite box. I think you are confusing finite and inifinte with the length of the box instead of the depth of the box. The idea with the infinite box is that there is an infinite potential (or walls) at the side of the box while with the finite box does not have an infinite potential (looks like a well). The problem you seem to have posted is a free particle which is still a difficult problem. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also strongly recommend against talking about tunneling without talking about the math behind it. As it stands now your introduction to tunneling is confusing. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myself, I think it's better to explain or mention the consequences of math (e.g. tunneling) without the math itself than to not mention them at all.  But, of course, it's better to have both.  By all means, when you've got the time, please add the math!  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Explanation of tunneling can only come about after the explanation of the problem. I read your user page and understand what you're trying to do. But you have to accept the responsibility that in order to present knowledge you have to present why it is. Why is tunneling allowed, how is it realized? These are things that you have to answer if you want it up there. Myself I feel compelled to let the truth about things be known. I have a growing concern after visiting pages on this site that people are making up wildly outrageous claims that don't seem to be trolls. For example on your nuclear fusion site someone said &amp;quot;stars are stable&amp;quot;. Your(the site's not your personally I kinda like you) entire page on nuclear power is either erroneous or just unnecessary. You seem to have an interest in keeping together the scientific pages. If this is the case I strongly urge you to post math, reason, experiments. How is it we know a wave function is correct? Think about it, if things aren't exactly in one particular position, why does the universe work? There are a lot of gaps in knowledge here that lead me to believe this is an mission of lunacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is scientifically reckless to just present results. What you are doing is telling people to just believe what you say is true. If science were done in this fashion where would we be as a society? I could just say, &amp;quot;Hey cold things get colder for no reason, just believe me.&amp;quot; If this was accepted it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Claims need proof. Results need proof. Consequences of things need math. With every fiber of my being I believe you are doing your race a disservice by simply presenting quantum mechanics as something that should be accepted.(Make no mistake that is what is happening here). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand the idea that this site is a safe-haven from liberal bias, but without references, without proof, without any reason for its claims, this site is worthless. Try and see this from my perspective. You say that this is a &amp;quot;trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; yet you post information. You also leave out information that you do not know about. This is a dangerous practice and it is morally and ethically wrong to say you are trustworthy without offering the full truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honestly, with all that said I like you Evan.(anyone who has taken and not failed a course in quantum obviously has some intelligence)But if you are going to walk down the scientific path, you have to make sure that you are thorough and complete. Otherwise what you are saying is harmful. You may think that my concern is unfounded but I promise you, it is very very dangerous just presenting claims and having people believe them to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also on not of the math, I have absolutely no idea how to type it up, if you want me to send it to you in some other way so you can type it up (or better review your work on these problems) I would be more than happy to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for the long windedness of this but the sharing of knowledge, while noble, is dangerous if not done properly. I simply fear that if we continue in this fashion, physics, all its laws and findings, will only be a field of debate rather than that of true science. Science is based on the principle that you must prove something for it to be true. I believe that this should hold true in the communication of scientific ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 20:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Older stuff==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have reinstated the change that had been made by Ssandoval, regarding the removal of &amp;quot;first order kinetics&amp;quot;.  It's true that he was an obvious vandal in other pages (yes, I looked around).  It's also true that calling it an &amp;quot;idiotic implication&amp;quot; was excessive, and that his next &amp;quot;sentence&amp;quot; had no verb and contained a reference to a &amp;quot;negative amount&amp;quot; that I can't figure out.  However, the chemical concept of &amp;quot;first order kinetics&amp;quot; isn't applicable here.  Not idiotic, but wrong nonetheless.  First order kinetics refers to a reaction rate ''per unit volume'' being proportional to the ''concentration'' of the reactants.  In radioactivity the rate depends only on the amount of material.  The exponential decay nevertheless follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please look before reverting.  [[User:CScience|CScience]] 14:25, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I deleted the jargon comment, although I do agree that it is jargon, and the comment is duly noted. Again, I wish to emphasize that the subject of quantum mechanics is inherently a college-level subject, and the language I used should be accessible to a student with a college level understanding of calculus and linear algebra. --[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 22:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let's not undo things hastily without discussing them first. There were some good things there. Why do you want to remove them?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:00, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I left an edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm no genius, but it all made sense to me....[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The postulates section could maybe have some preface or qualifying sentences to make it a bit easier for people without a background in physics to understand, but I could understand the article just fine as it was.  Even [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman Richard Feynman] said that nobody truly understood quantum mechanics; however just because a concept is confusing, counterintuitive, or requires some previous knowledge to be explained, does not mean it should removed or simplified. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 16:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must take issue with the sentence: as a result of the wave nature of an electron, the position of the electron can never precisely be known. First of all, the more correct statement is that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. And this has nothing to do with the fact that an electron behaves like a wave. Rather, it results from the fact that the position and momentum operators do not commute with each other. For an example at the other end of the spectrum, the energy and spin-z operators DO commute with each other, and for this reason one can indeed simultaneously know the energy and spin of an electron.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 19:52, 19 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, thank you for clarifying the point that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. This has been poorly stated in many places, and is really misleading. It's hard enough to understand physics; let's not make it any harder. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 20:34, 19 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm new here, so I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly.  Should I propose edits on the talk page and then make them on the main page?  There are some things stated on this subject on the front page that are incorrect (although not completely wrong), and I would like to correct that.  I'm hoping to eventually help out in other subjects here, but for now will contribute to what I know best.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first edit would be on the uncertainty position - it states that position and velocity can not both be simultaneously known to within arbitrary position.  The current statement is about velocity only.  For applications of quantum mechanics, I think we should talk about more than just radioactive decay - I would like to add a link on transistors, as they seem a far more relevant application of QM in people's daily lives.  Also, radioactive decay is often thrown about in a cartoonish way without fully understanding it - which is why things like carbon dating done by evolutionists are so blindly accepted by the public, when the science to make a real measurement is actually quite complicated.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:CGriswald|CGriswald]] 12:51, 13 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a year, this page remains woefully incomplete. Perhaps discrediting the theory of relativity is a greater priority for the physics contributions at Conservapedia. To add a little actual content to this page, someone should write sections on the following topics: (1) The photo-electric effect. (2) The classical vs quantum understanding of black-body radiation. (3) The double-slit experiment. (4) The Stern-Gerlach experiment.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:19, 25 May 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I added a section about the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. It is very difficult to express them without mathematics and with a minimum of specialized language, but I did my best. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 23:12, 13 August 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quantum mechanics and God ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It occurred to me during a discussion that God's omniscience has some interesting implications when discussing quantum mechanics.  The question being discussed had to do with Calvinism, and with whether God's omniscience invariably leads to predestined salvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schrodinger's thought experiment popped immediately into my mind, and it occurred to me that, if the Copenhagen interpretation is accurate, God's omniscience makes Schrodinger's Cat an impossibility: the superposition of states cannot be unresolved, and the waveform cannot be uncollapsed, because there is an omnipresent observer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This would actually be in keeping with Schrodinger's views; he did not, after all, believe that it was possible for a cat to be both alive and dead at the same time.  Schrodinger's Cat was an effort to point out the absurdity that results from a strict acceptance of the Copenhagen Interpretation.  He pointed this out in an exchange with Einstein, saying that one &amp;quot;cannot get around the assumption of reality&amp;quot;--that is, reality must have a definite state, even if that state is (as of yet) undetermined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It occurs to me that the acceptance of an omniscient observer resolves a great many paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics, and lends credence to the relational interpretation--in which scenario the waveform would appear uncollapsed to us, while God would observe it as collapsed.  It would also suggest that objective collapse theory is a misinterpretation; collapse DOES occur irrespective of our observations, but not irrespective of ANY observation.  The ENVIRONMENT does not observe the cat; the CREATOR of the environment observes the cat (or the particle)--and, in so doing, collapses the waveform and resolves the superposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I will admit that my understanding of these issues is a layman's, and not thorough.  I know there are other contributors here with a much deeper understanding of quantum mechanics, and perhaps they can correct any misperceptions and misunderstandings in my above scenario.   --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:14, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's incredibly insightful ... an interpretation I've never heard before in all the years I've studied and reviewed [[quantum mechanics]].  I'd like to consider this further before responding in detail.  Note, however, that there is some biblical basis for questioning the view that God is omniscient.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:58, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If God is omniscient then surely he doesn't need to observe. He would simply ''know''. Quantum mechanics is a theory about how reality presents itself to humans. Surely God is not subject to the restrictions of quantum mechanics (or any other physical theory), and there is no way for us to know how God &amp;quot;experiences&amp;quot; (if that is even an appropriate term) reality. --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 12:06, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Your statement includes several assumptions that are worth considering first.  Does God want to know everything?  There are several instances in the Old Testament where God did not seem to automatically know the answer, but had to inquire to find out.  Also, even if God knows everything, that would still not rule out a possible role for chance.  Humans know everything about the physics of a simple coin, but still don't know the outcome of a coin toss until they look.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::But what is chance for us is not necessarily chance for God. God is larger than humans, isn't he? Unfathomably large, too large for us to understand. --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 13:30, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::God is unfathomable to us, indeed, but why assume he wants to know everything?  Again, there are very clear passages in the Old Testament where God inquired to find something out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Maybe that explains why we haven't heard from him in 2000 years... --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 14:51, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mechanics&amp;diff=868907</id>
		<title>Talk:Quantum mechanics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mechanics&amp;diff=868907"/>
		<updated>2011-05-14T17:30:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: /* Quantum mechanics and God */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Wave Function==&lt;br /&gt;
I edited the Collapse of the Wave Function segment. I found it offensively wrong in many respects. I understand there is a need to make certain things &amp;quot;accessible&amp;quot; to people. However there is more of a need to present truthful information regardless of its accessibility. I do not post anything that I could not back up with sources. If you feel the need to change what I say make sure that you know what you're talking about because as it stands right now the &amp;quot;corrected&amp;quot; version of the segment has almost no value of worth. The explanation of a wave function ONLY occurs in a special example. I decided to take a look at this website after seeing it aired on the &amp;quot;Colbert Report&amp;quot; and am offended at the lack of some information, and the bastardization of what was once truthful information. Honestly you should not even begin to think to alter this page if you have not taken a course in Quantum that was taught by a PhD. in the field. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Hello, and thanks for joining!  I actually have taken a short course in quantum mechanics last year, but I very well might be remembering it wrongly.  Could you please explain what part of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&amp;amp;diff=728472&amp;amp;oldid=728463 my last edit] is wrong?  I was trying to restore the specific analysis of what the position function is, and the consequence:  that there's a nonzero chance the particle can jump across the room or the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:And if you just think the organization can be improved, or there's more stuff we need to talk about, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I came to this website a month and a half ago myself, and I'm still shocked by how much ground we still have to cover.  Please help us improve!  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:01, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No problem. To start with you said that the particles move randomly. We don't know that. Part of current debate in quantum is whether the theory we have no complete or not. As you can imagine it isn't easily accepted that we &amp;quot;just can't know&amp;quot; the position of the particle so many people claim that as of now, quantum is incomplete. If this is so then it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain. This mistake isn't so much an error in knowledge as much as it is too bold of a statement to make.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In your next sentence, its not that the position isn't described as a point, but that it is meaningless to say it as such. This is an important distinction to make. If it just isn't described that way but has meaning, then it COULD be described that way but for reasons unknown to the reader, it isn't. If it is a meaningless value then there is no point in talking about it as such. It is imperative to explain why things are the way they and not just say &amp;quot;oh well its not done that way&amp;quot; WHY IS IT SO? (most important thing you can ask yourself as you write your thesis)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have much of a problem with your description of the wave function presented, I feel it would be much more useful to talk about the particle in a box problem as it is a good introductory point for the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't really like the way you say &amp;quot;jumps&amp;quot;. In my mind it implies that &amp;quot;it was here but now its way over there&amp;quot;. All this wave function is telling you is that if you look everywhere you will find the particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The wave function is a prediction of averages. In other words, (disregarding collapsing) if you measured the particle's position an infinite number of times,  you would find that 99% of the time it would be in that two angstrom range while the other 1 percent of the time its elsewhere. The particle doesn't &amp;quot;jump&amp;quot; it just wasn't where you would have expected to find it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The collapsing of the wave function is a consequence of measurement, not the reason for it. It mearly says, if you measure it then you know about where the particle is, so if you measured it again immediately it would be around that location. Once again it doesn't &amp;quot;jump&amp;quot; away on its own. In fact if you continuously measure the particle with very little time between measurements the wave function will stay collapsed as long as you're measuring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your final statement is a bit redundant and a little not true. I explained why the wave function collapses. However saying how it will collapse before measurement is about the same as saying &amp;quot;the particle is right here&amp;quot; its meaningless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Keep in mind that I am a little flustered about all of this because I came from the page on magnetism where they described it as &amp;quot;a component of the electromagnetic force&amp;quot;. While a lot of what you said wasn't &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot; it also wasn't true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for explaining all this.  Thanks for reminding me about the difference between &amp;quot;random&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;currently inexplicable&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;we don't do it&amp;quot; v. &amp;quot;it's meaningless,&amp;quot; and for explaining about the wavefunction staying collapsed if you measure a short while afterward - I hadn't heard that last point before.  I just edited the page to clarify some of what you said and add the example of the particle in a finite box; I'd rather not put it in an infinite box myself as I don't quite remember the math.  If you'd like to do that, I'd greatly appreciate it!&lt;br /&gt;
:But I don't think your wording that &amp;quot;predicting how and where the wave function will collapse is a meaningless endeavor,&amp;quot; is quite accurate.  Isn't that the same as &amp;quot;it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
:(By the way, you can automatically sign your posts with four tildas (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;), and indent with a colon at the start of the line.)   --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think there is much of a reason behind predicting the collapse of a wave function or discussing it. Like I said the collapse of a wave function is a consequence of measurement and as we know measurement changes what we're measuring. So in a way the collapse of a wave function only occurs when you are no longer looking at what you wanted to look at. (I wish there was a better way to say that). &lt;br /&gt;
BTW thanks for the tilda thing I was trying to figure that out. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Side note, the problem you have presented is not a finite box as the wave function does not look like that for a finite box. The math for a finite box is much more complicated than that for the infinite box. I think you are confusing finite and inifinte with the length of the box instead of the depth of the box. The idea with the infinite box is that there is an infinite potential (or walls) at the side of the box while with the finite box does not have an infinite potential (looks like a well). The problem you seem to have posted is a free particle which is still a difficult problem. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also strongly recommend against talking about tunneling without talking about the math behind it. As it stands now your introduction to tunneling is confusing. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myself, I think it's better to explain or mention the consequences of math (e.g. tunneling) without the math itself than to not mention them at all.  But, of course, it's better to have both.  By all means, when you've got the time, please add the math!  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Explanation of tunneling can only come about after the explanation of the problem. I read your user page and understand what you're trying to do. But you have to accept the responsibility that in order to present knowledge you have to present why it is. Why is tunneling allowed, how is it realized? These are things that you have to answer if you want it up there. Myself I feel compelled to let the truth about things be known. I have a growing concern after visiting pages on this site that people are making up wildly outrageous claims that don't seem to be trolls. For example on your nuclear fusion site someone said &amp;quot;stars are stable&amp;quot;. Your(the site's not your personally I kinda like you) entire page on nuclear power is either erroneous or just unnecessary. You seem to have an interest in keeping together the scientific pages. If this is the case I strongly urge you to post math, reason, experiments. How is it we know a wave function is correct? Think about it, if things aren't exactly in one particular position, why does the universe work? There are a lot of gaps in knowledge here that lead me to believe this is an mission of lunacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is scientifically reckless to just present results. What you are doing is telling people to just believe what you say is true. If science were done in this fashion where would we be as a society? I could just say, &amp;quot;Hey cold things get colder for no reason, just believe me.&amp;quot; If this was accepted it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Claims need proof. Results need proof. Consequences of things need math. With every fiber of my being I believe you are doing your race a disservice by simply presenting quantum mechanics as something that should be accepted.(Make no mistake that is what is happening here). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand the idea that this site is a safe-haven from liberal bias, but without references, without proof, without any reason for its claims, this site is worthless. Try and see this from my perspective. You say that this is a &amp;quot;trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; yet you post information. You also leave out information that you do not know about. This is a dangerous practice and it is morally and ethically wrong to say you are trustworthy without offering the full truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honestly, with all that said I like you Evan.(anyone who has taken and not failed a course in quantum obviously has some intelligence)But if you are going to walk down the scientific path, you have to make sure that you are thorough and complete. Otherwise what you are saying is harmful. You may think that my concern is unfounded but I promise you, it is very very dangerous just presenting claims and having people believe them to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also on not of the math, I have absolutely no idea how to type it up, if you want me to send it to you in some other way so you can type it up (or better review your work on these problems) I would be more than happy to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for the long windedness of this but the sharing of knowledge, while noble, is dangerous if not done properly. I simply fear that if we continue in this fashion, physics, all its laws and findings, will only be a field of debate rather than that of true science. Science is based on the principle that you must prove something for it to be true. I believe that this should hold true in the communication of scientific ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 20:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Older stuff==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have reinstated the change that had been made by Ssandoval, regarding the removal of &amp;quot;first order kinetics&amp;quot;.  It's true that he was an obvious vandal in other pages (yes, I looked around).  It's also true that calling it an &amp;quot;idiotic implication&amp;quot; was excessive, and that his next &amp;quot;sentence&amp;quot; had no verb and contained a reference to a &amp;quot;negative amount&amp;quot; that I can't figure out.  However, the chemical concept of &amp;quot;first order kinetics&amp;quot; isn't applicable here.  Not idiotic, but wrong nonetheless.  First order kinetics refers to a reaction rate ''per unit volume'' being proportional to the ''concentration'' of the reactants.  In radioactivity the rate depends only on the amount of material.  The exponential decay nevertheless follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please look before reverting.  [[User:CScience|CScience]] 14:25, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I deleted the jargon comment, although I do agree that it is jargon, and the comment is duly noted. Again, I wish to emphasize that the subject of quantum mechanics is inherently a college-level subject, and the language I used should be accessible to a student with a college level understanding of calculus and linear algebra. --[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 22:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let's not undo things hastily without discussing them first. There were some good things there. Why do you want to remove them?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:00, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I left an edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm no genius, but it all made sense to me....[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The postulates section could maybe have some preface or qualifying sentences to make it a bit easier for people without a background in physics to understand, but I could understand the article just fine as it was.  Even [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman Richard Feynman] said that nobody truly understood quantum mechanics; however just because a concept is confusing, counterintuitive, or requires some previous knowledge to be explained, does not mean it should removed or simplified. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 16:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must take issue with the sentence: as a result of the wave nature of an electron, the position of the electron can never precisely be known. First of all, the more correct statement is that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. And this has nothing to do with the fact that an electron behaves like a wave. Rather, it results from the fact that the position and momentum operators do not commute with each other. For an example at the other end of the spectrum, the energy and spin-z operators DO commute with each other, and for this reason one can indeed simultaneously know the energy and spin of an electron.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 19:52, 19 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, thank you for clarifying the point that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. This has been poorly stated in many places, and is really misleading. It's hard enough to understand physics; let's not make it any harder. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 20:34, 19 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm new here, so I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly.  Should I propose edits on the talk page and then make them on the main page?  There are some things stated on this subject on the front page that are incorrect (although not completely wrong), and I would like to correct that.  I'm hoping to eventually help out in other subjects here, but for now will contribute to what I know best.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first edit would be on the uncertainty position - it states that position and velocity can not both be simultaneously known to within arbitrary position.  The current statement is about velocity only.  For applications of quantum mechanics, I think we should talk about more than just radioactive decay - I would like to add a link on transistors, as they seem a far more relevant application of QM in people's daily lives.  Also, radioactive decay is often thrown about in a cartoonish way without fully understanding it - which is why things like carbon dating done by evolutionists are so blindly accepted by the public, when the science to make a real measurement is actually quite complicated.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:CGriswald|CGriswald]] 12:51, 13 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a year, this page remains woefully incomplete. Perhaps discrediting the theory of relativity is a greater priority for the physics contributions at Conservapedia. To add a little actual content to this page, someone should write sections on the following topics: (1) The photo-electric effect. (2) The classical vs quantum understanding of black-body radiation. (3) The double-slit experiment. (4) The Stern-Gerlach experiment.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:19, 25 May 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I added a section about the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. It is very difficult to express them without mathematics and with a minimum of specialized language, but I did my best. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 23:12, 13 August 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quantum mechanics and God ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It occurred to me during a discussion that God's omniscience has some interesting implications when discussing quantum mechanics.  The question being discussed had to do with Calvinism, and with whether God's omniscience invariably leads to predestined salvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schrodinger's thought experiment popped immediately into my mind, and it occurred to me that, if the Copenhagen interpretation is accurate, God's omniscience makes Schrodinger's Cat an impossibility: the superposition of states cannot be unresolved, and the waveform cannot be uncollapsed, because there is an omnipresent observer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This would actually be in keeping with Schrodinger's views; he did not, after all, believe that it was possible for a cat to be both alive and dead at the same time.  Schrodinger's Cat was an effort to point out the absurdity that results from a strict acceptance of the Copenhagen Interpretation.  He pointed this out in an exchange with Einstein, saying that one &amp;quot;cannot get around the assumption of reality&amp;quot;--that is, reality must have a definite state, even if that state is (as of yet) undetermined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It occurs to me that the acceptance of an omniscient observer resolves a great many paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics, and lends credence to the relational interpretation--in which scenario the waveform would appear uncollapsed to us, while God would observe it as collapsed.  It would also suggest that objective collapse theory is a misinterpretation; collapse DOES occur irrespective of our observations, but not irrespective of ANY observation.  The ENVIRONMENT does not observe the cat; the CREATOR of the environment observes the cat (or the particle)--and, in so doing, collapses the waveform and resolves the superposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I will admit that my understanding of these issues is a layman's, and not thorough.  I know there are other contributors here with a much deeper understanding of quantum mechanics, and perhaps they can correct any misperceptions and misunderstandings in my above scenario.   --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:14, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's incredibly insightful ... an interpretation I've never heard before in all the years I've studied and reviewed [[quantum mechanics]].  I'd like to consider this further before responding in detail.  Note, however, that there is some biblical basis for questioning the view that God is omniscient.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:58, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If God is omniscient then surely he doesn't need to observe. He would simply ''know''. Quantum mechanics is a theory about how reality presents itself to humans. Surely God is not subject to the restrictions of quantum mechanics (or any other physical theory), and there is no way for us to know how God &amp;quot;experiences&amp;quot; (if that is even an appropriate term) reality. --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 12:06, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Your statement includes several assumptions that are worth considering first.  Does God want to know everything?  There are several instances in the Old Testament where God did not seem to automatically know the answer, but had to inquire to find out.  Also, even if God knows everything, that would still not rule out a possible role for chance.  Humans know everything about the physics of a simple coin, but still don't know the outcome of a coin toss until they look.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::But what is chance for us is not necessarily chance for God. God is larger than humans, isn't he? Unfathomably large, too large for us to understand. --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 13:30, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mechanics&amp;diff=868886</id>
		<title>Talk:Quantum mechanics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mechanics&amp;diff=868886"/>
		<updated>2011-05-14T16:06:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: /* Quantum mechanics and God */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Wave Function==&lt;br /&gt;
I edited the Collapse of the Wave Function segment. I found it offensively wrong in many respects. I understand there is a need to make certain things &amp;quot;accessible&amp;quot; to people. However there is more of a need to present truthful information regardless of its accessibility. I do not post anything that I could not back up with sources. If you feel the need to change what I say make sure that you know what you're talking about because as it stands right now the &amp;quot;corrected&amp;quot; version of the segment has almost no value of worth. The explanation of a wave function ONLY occurs in a special example. I decided to take a look at this website after seeing it aired on the &amp;quot;Colbert Report&amp;quot; and am offended at the lack of some information, and the bastardization of what was once truthful information. Honestly you should not even begin to think to alter this page if you have not taken a course in Quantum that was taught by a PhD. in the field. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Hello, and thanks for joining!  I actually have taken a short course in quantum mechanics last year, but I very well might be remembering it wrongly.  Could you please explain what part of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&amp;amp;diff=728472&amp;amp;oldid=728463 my last edit] is wrong?  I was trying to restore the specific analysis of what the position function is, and the consequence:  that there's a nonzero chance the particle can jump across the room or the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:And if you just think the organization can be improved, or there's more stuff we need to talk about, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I came to this website a month and a half ago myself, and I'm still shocked by how much ground we still have to cover.  Please help us improve!  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:01, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No problem. To start with you said that the particles move randomly. We don't know that. Part of current debate in quantum is whether the theory we have no complete or not. As you can imagine it isn't easily accepted that we &amp;quot;just can't know&amp;quot; the position of the particle so many people claim that as of now, quantum is incomplete. If this is so then it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain. This mistake isn't so much an error in knowledge as much as it is too bold of a statement to make.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In your next sentence, its not that the position isn't described as a point, but that it is meaningless to say it as such. This is an important distinction to make. If it just isn't described that way but has meaning, then it COULD be described that way but for reasons unknown to the reader, it isn't. If it is a meaningless value then there is no point in talking about it as such. It is imperative to explain why things are the way they and not just say &amp;quot;oh well its not done that way&amp;quot; WHY IS IT SO? (most important thing you can ask yourself as you write your thesis)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have much of a problem with your description of the wave function presented, I feel it would be much more useful to talk about the particle in a box problem as it is a good introductory point for the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't really like the way you say &amp;quot;jumps&amp;quot;. In my mind it implies that &amp;quot;it was here but now its way over there&amp;quot;. All this wave function is telling you is that if you look everywhere you will find the particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The wave function is a prediction of averages. In other words, (disregarding collapsing) if you measured the particle's position an infinite number of times,  you would find that 99% of the time it would be in that two angstrom range while the other 1 percent of the time its elsewhere. The particle doesn't &amp;quot;jump&amp;quot; it just wasn't where you would have expected to find it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The collapsing of the wave function is a consequence of measurement, not the reason for it. It mearly says, if you measure it then you know about where the particle is, so if you measured it again immediately it would be around that location. Once again it doesn't &amp;quot;jump&amp;quot; away on its own. In fact if you continuously measure the particle with very little time between measurements the wave function will stay collapsed as long as you're measuring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your final statement is a bit redundant and a little not true. I explained why the wave function collapses. However saying how it will collapse before measurement is about the same as saying &amp;quot;the particle is right here&amp;quot; its meaningless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Keep in mind that I am a little flustered about all of this because I came from the page on magnetism where they described it as &amp;quot;a component of the electromagnetic force&amp;quot;. While a lot of what you said wasn't &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot; it also wasn't true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for explaining all this.  Thanks for reminding me about the difference between &amp;quot;random&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;currently inexplicable&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;we don't do it&amp;quot; v. &amp;quot;it's meaningless,&amp;quot; and for explaining about the wavefunction staying collapsed if you measure a short while afterward - I hadn't heard that last point before.  I just edited the page to clarify some of what you said and add the example of the particle in a finite box; I'd rather not put it in an infinite box myself as I don't quite remember the math.  If you'd like to do that, I'd greatly appreciate it!&lt;br /&gt;
:But I don't think your wording that &amp;quot;predicting how and where the wave function will collapse is a meaningless endeavor,&amp;quot; is quite accurate.  Isn't that the same as &amp;quot;it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
:(By the way, you can automatically sign your posts with four tildas (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;), and indent with a colon at the start of the line.)   --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think there is much of a reason behind predicting the collapse of a wave function or discussing it. Like I said the collapse of a wave function is a consequence of measurement and as we know measurement changes what we're measuring. So in a way the collapse of a wave function only occurs when you are no longer looking at what you wanted to look at. (I wish there was a better way to say that). &lt;br /&gt;
BTW thanks for the tilda thing I was trying to figure that out. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Side note, the problem you have presented is not a finite box as the wave function does not look like that for a finite box. The math for a finite box is much more complicated than that for the infinite box. I think you are confusing finite and inifinte with the length of the box instead of the depth of the box. The idea with the infinite box is that there is an infinite potential (or walls) at the side of the box while with the finite box does not have an infinite potential (looks like a well). The problem you seem to have posted is a free particle which is still a difficult problem. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also strongly recommend against talking about tunneling without talking about the math behind it. As it stands now your introduction to tunneling is confusing. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myself, I think it's better to explain or mention the consequences of math (e.g. tunneling) without the math itself than to not mention them at all.  But, of course, it's better to have both.  By all means, when you've got the time, please add the math!  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Explanation of tunneling can only come about after the explanation of the problem. I read your user page and understand what you're trying to do. But you have to accept the responsibility that in order to present knowledge you have to present why it is. Why is tunneling allowed, how is it realized? These are things that you have to answer if you want it up there. Myself I feel compelled to let the truth about things be known. I have a growing concern after visiting pages on this site that people are making up wildly outrageous claims that don't seem to be trolls. For example on your nuclear fusion site someone said &amp;quot;stars are stable&amp;quot;. Your(the site's not your personally I kinda like you) entire page on nuclear power is either erroneous or just unnecessary. You seem to have an interest in keeping together the scientific pages. If this is the case I strongly urge you to post math, reason, experiments. How is it we know a wave function is correct? Think about it, if things aren't exactly in one particular position, why does the universe work? There are a lot of gaps in knowledge here that lead me to believe this is an mission of lunacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is scientifically reckless to just present results. What you are doing is telling people to just believe what you say is true. If science were done in this fashion where would we be as a society? I could just say, &amp;quot;Hey cold things get colder for no reason, just believe me.&amp;quot; If this was accepted it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Claims need proof. Results need proof. Consequences of things need math. With every fiber of my being I believe you are doing your race a disservice by simply presenting quantum mechanics as something that should be accepted.(Make no mistake that is what is happening here). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand the idea that this site is a safe-haven from liberal bias, but without references, without proof, without any reason for its claims, this site is worthless. Try and see this from my perspective. You say that this is a &amp;quot;trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; yet you post information. You also leave out information that you do not know about. This is a dangerous practice and it is morally and ethically wrong to say you are trustworthy without offering the full truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honestly, with all that said I like you Evan.(anyone who has taken and not failed a course in quantum obviously has some intelligence)But if you are going to walk down the scientific path, you have to make sure that you are thorough and complete. Otherwise what you are saying is harmful. You may think that my concern is unfounded but I promise you, it is very very dangerous just presenting claims and having people believe them to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also on not of the math, I have absolutely no idea how to type it up, if you want me to send it to you in some other way so you can type it up (or better review your work on these problems) I would be more than happy to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for the long windedness of this but the sharing of knowledge, while noble, is dangerous if not done properly. I simply fear that if we continue in this fashion, physics, all its laws and findings, will only be a field of debate rather than that of true science. Science is based on the principle that you must prove something for it to be true. I believe that this should hold true in the communication of scientific ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 20:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Older stuff==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have reinstated the change that had been made by Ssandoval, regarding the removal of &amp;quot;first order kinetics&amp;quot;.  It's true that he was an obvious vandal in other pages (yes, I looked around).  It's also true that calling it an &amp;quot;idiotic implication&amp;quot; was excessive, and that his next &amp;quot;sentence&amp;quot; had no verb and contained a reference to a &amp;quot;negative amount&amp;quot; that I can't figure out.  However, the chemical concept of &amp;quot;first order kinetics&amp;quot; isn't applicable here.  Not idiotic, but wrong nonetheless.  First order kinetics refers to a reaction rate ''per unit volume'' being proportional to the ''concentration'' of the reactants.  In radioactivity the rate depends only on the amount of material.  The exponential decay nevertheless follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please look before reverting.  [[User:CScience|CScience]] 14:25, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I deleted the jargon comment, although I do agree that it is jargon, and the comment is duly noted. Again, I wish to emphasize that the subject of quantum mechanics is inherently a college-level subject, and the language I used should be accessible to a student with a college level understanding of calculus and linear algebra. --[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 22:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let's not undo things hastily without discussing them first. There were some good things there. Why do you want to remove them?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:00, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I left an edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm no genius, but it all made sense to me....[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The postulates section could maybe have some preface or qualifying sentences to make it a bit easier for people without a background in physics to understand, but I could understand the article just fine as it was.  Even [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman Richard Feynman] said that nobody truly understood quantum mechanics; however just because a concept is confusing, counterintuitive, or requires some previous knowledge to be explained, does not mean it should removed or simplified. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 16:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must take issue with the sentence: as a result of the wave nature of an electron, the position of the electron can never precisely be known. First of all, the more correct statement is that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. And this has nothing to do with the fact that an electron behaves like a wave. Rather, it results from the fact that the position and momentum operators do not commute with each other. For an example at the other end of the spectrum, the energy and spin-z operators DO commute with each other, and for this reason one can indeed simultaneously know the energy and spin of an electron.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 19:52, 19 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, thank you for clarifying the point that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. This has been poorly stated in many places, and is really misleading. It's hard enough to understand physics; let's not make it any harder. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 20:34, 19 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm new here, so I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly.  Should I propose edits on the talk page and then make them on the main page?  There are some things stated on this subject on the front page that are incorrect (although not completely wrong), and I would like to correct that.  I'm hoping to eventually help out in other subjects here, but for now will contribute to what I know best.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first edit would be on the uncertainty position - it states that position and velocity can not both be simultaneously known to within arbitrary position.  The current statement is about velocity only.  For applications of quantum mechanics, I think we should talk about more than just radioactive decay - I would like to add a link on transistors, as they seem a far more relevant application of QM in people's daily lives.  Also, radioactive decay is often thrown about in a cartoonish way without fully understanding it - which is why things like carbon dating done by evolutionists are so blindly accepted by the public, when the science to make a real measurement is actually quite complicated.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:CGriswald|CGriswald]] 12:51, 13 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a year, this page remains woefully incomplete. Perhaps discrediting the theory of relativity is a greater priority for the physics contributions at Conservapedia. To add a little actual content to this page, someone should write sections on the following topics: (1) The photo-electric effect. (2) The classical vs quantum understanding of black-body radiation. (3) The double-slit experiment. (4) The Stern-Gerlach experiment.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:19, 25 May 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I added a section about the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. It is very difficult to express them without mathematics and with a minimum of specialized language, but I did my best. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 23:12, 13 August 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quantum mechanics and God ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It occurred to me during a discussion that God's omniscience has some interesting implications when discussing quantum mechanics.  The question being discussed had to do with Calvinism, and with whether God's omniscience invariably leads to predestined salvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schrodinger's thought experiment popped immediately into my mind, and it occurred to me that, if the Copenhagen interpretation is accurate, God's omniscience makes Schrodinger's Cat an impossibility: the superposition of states cannot be unresolved, and the waveform cannot be uncollapsed, because there is an omnipresent observer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This would actually be in keeping with Schrodinger's views; he did not, after all, believe that it was possible for a cat to be both alive and dead at the same time.  Schrodinger's Cat was an effort to point out the absurdity that results from a strict acceptance of the Copenhagen Interpretation.  He pointed this out in an exchange with Einstein, saying that one &amp;quot;cannot get around the assumption of reality&amp;quot;--that is, reality must have a definite state, even if that state is (as of yet) undetermined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It occurs to me that the acceptance of an omniscient observer resolves a great many paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics, and lends credence to the relational interpretation--in which scenario the waveform would appear uncollapsed to us, while God would observe it as collapsed.  It would also suggest that objective collapse theory is a misinterpretation; collapse DOES occur irrespective of our observations, but not irrespective of ANY observation.  The ENVIRONMENT does not observe the cat; the CREATOR of the environment observes the cat (or the particle)--and, in so doing, collapses the waveform and resolves the superposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I will admit that my understanding of these issues is a layman's, and not thorough.  I know there are other contributors here with a much deeper understanding of quantum mechanics, and perhaps they can correct any misperceptions and misunderstandings in my above scenario.   --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:14, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's incredibly insightful ... an interpretation I've never heard before in all the years I've studied and reviewed [[quantum mechanics]].  I'd like to consider this further before responding in detail.  Note, however, that there is some biblical basis for questioning the view that God is omniscient.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:58, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If God is omniscient then surely he doesn't need to observe. He would simply ''know''. Quantum mechanics is a theory about how reality presents itself to humans. Surely God is not subject to the restrictions of quantum mechanics (or any other physical theory), and there is no way for us to know how God &amp;quot;experiences&amp;quot; (if that is even an appropriate term) reality. --[[User:FrederickT|FrederickT]] 12:06, 14 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=868694</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=868694"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T22:07:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is our growing list:&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY &amp;quot;Free Bird&amp;quot;] by Lynyrd Skynyrd - Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI &amp;quot;Wouldn't It Be Nice&amp;quot;] by the [[Beach Boys]] – Pro-marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w &amp;quot;You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)&amp;quot;] – Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and Phil Collins were popular.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU &amp;quot;Have You Forgotten?&amp;quot;] by Darryl Worley – Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 &amp;quot;Still the One&amp;quot;] by Orleans (1976) – A tribute to fidelity in relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA &amp;quot;Sweet Home Alabama&amp;quot;] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew &amp;quot;Stand By Your Man&amp;quot;] by [[Tammy Wynette]] – Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo &amp;quot;Lee Greenwood's rendition&amp;quot;] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]] – &amp;quot;As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g &amp;quot;The Man Comes Around&amp;quot;] by [[Johnny Cash]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I &amp;quot;My Love&amp;quot;] by [[Petula Clark]] – Christian love in secular form.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 &amp;quot;I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)&amp;quot;] by The Crickets – Its title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;You Light Up My Life&amp;quot; by Debbie Boone – One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&amp;amp;mode=related&amp;amp;search= &amp;quot;Jerusalem&amp;quot;]. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q &amp;quot;Brothers In Arms&amp;quot;] by [[Dire Straits]] – We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 &amp;quot;The Ascent of Stan&amp;quot;] by [[Ben Folds]] – Tells the story of a former &amp;quot;textbook hippie man&amp;quot; who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Starting All Over Again&amp;quot; by [[Petula Clark]] – Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Thank You My Lord&amp;quot; by [[Petula Clark]] – The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Brick&amp;quot; by Ben Folds Five – Shows the regret involved in abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Alive&amp;quot; by P.O.D – About being thankful for the gift of life.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html &amp;quot;Gotta Serve Somebody&amp;quot;] by [[Bob Dylan]] – &amp;quot;It may be the devil or it may be the Lord.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine] by Taylor Swift – Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Red Barchetta&amp;quot; by [[Rush]] – Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Father of Mine&amp;quot; by Everclear – A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman] by [[The Beatles]] – George Harrison said, &amp;quot;Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&amp;amp;feature=related Back in the U.S.A.] by [[Chuck Berry]] – A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM &amp;quot;Government Cheese&amp;quot;] by The Rainmakers – Humorous spoof of welfare.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k &amp;quot;Angry Young Man&amp;quot;] by [[Billy Joel]] – The doctrinaire leftist radical with &amp;quot;his fist in the air and his head in the sand&amp;quot; comes in for biting criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – The name says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ &amp;quot;Spirit In The Sky&amp;quot;] by Norman Greenbaum. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA &amp;quot;Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun&amp;quot;] by Grand Funk Railroad – A father gives his son some sage advice.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk &amp;quot;Something For Nothing&amp;quot;] by Rush – &amp;quot;You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Neighborhood Bully&amp;quot; by [[Bob Dylan]] – Israel's right to exist and defend itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Get It Right the First Time&amp;quot; by Louisiana's Le Roux – Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own.  Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Only The Young&amp;quot; by Journey – &amp;quot;The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong&amp;quot;.  An anthem for the Reagan Generation.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o &amp;quot;Yours Is No Disgrace&amp;quot;] by [[Yes]] – Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Fair Exchange&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Sparks of the Tempest&amp;quot; by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]] – Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia.  Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;In America&amp;quot; by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band – Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Storm the Embassy&amp;quot; by the Stray Cats – Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;We Must Take America Back&amp;quot; by Steve Vaus – Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot; by [[Steppenwolf]] – [[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI &amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot;] by Oingo Boingo – There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Unborn Child&amp;quot; by Seals and Crofts – This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)&amp;quot; by Steve Taylor – Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and &amp;quot;the left-wing band with their head in the sand&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Last Kiss&amp;quot; by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders – &amp;quot;Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Love Me, I'm a Liberal&amp;quot; by Phil Ochs – Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;America USA&amp;quot; by Joey Sudyka – Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU &amp;quot;Red White and Blue&amp;quot;] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk &amp;quot;Simple Man&amp;quot;] by [[Charlie Daniels]] – A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;That Smell&amp;quot; by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.&lt;br /&gt;
# Virtually anything by Toby Keith, but especially &amp;quot;Courtesy of the Red, White &amp;amp; Blue (The Angry American)&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY &amp;quot;Under God&amp;quot;] by [[Pat Boone]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Christmas Shoes&amp;quot; by NewSons – A Christmas song by a Christian band. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html &amp;quot;God Bless the USA&amp;quot;] by Lee Greenwood.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;God Bless America&amp;quot; by Irving Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU &amp;quot;No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed&amp;quot;] by Yes – &amp;quot;...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g &amp;quot;Supper's Ready&amp;quot;] by [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] – ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, &amp;quot;This is the supper of the mighty one&amp;quot;, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI &amp;quot;Your Love Is Extravagant&amp;quot;] by Casting Crowns.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 &amp;quot;What If His People Prayed&amp;quot;] by Casting Crowns.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 &amp;quot;King Without a Crown&amp;quot;] by Matisyahu – A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: &amp;quot;If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Take Me Home, Country Roads&amp;quot; by John Denver (and others) – Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Sin City&amp;quot; by the Flying Burrito Brothers – Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;I Saw the Light&amp;quot; by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions) – Redemption from sin through faith.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;No Son of Mine&amp;quot; by Genesis.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Don't Stop&amp;quot; (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac – Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Lightning Crashes&amp;quot; by Live – The joy and significance of childbirth.  &lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Takin' Care of Business&amp;quot; by Bachman-Turner Overdrive – The work ethic and promoting self-employment.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Cat's In The Cradle&amp;quot; by Harry Chapin – The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 &amp;quot;The Devil Went Down To Georgia&amp;quot;] by [[Charlie Daniels]] – A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Big Money&amp;quot; by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Real American&amp;quot; by Rick Derringer – patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&amp;amp;feature=related &amp;quot;Amazing Grace&amp;quot;] – A Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&amp;amp;feature=related &amp;quot;Go Down Moses&amp;quot;] performed by [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by Sy (Arr) Oliver.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc &amp;quot;Walking Contradiction&amp;quot;] by [[Green Day]] – Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term &amp;quot;walking contradiction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;God and Guns&amp;quot; by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Staying Alive&amp;quot; by the Bee Gees – Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: &amp;quot;we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Sympathy for the Devil&amp;quot; by the Rolling Stones – Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 &amp;quot;All In''] by Lifehouse – Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE &amp;quot;The Ballad of the Green Berets&amp;quot;] by Sergeant Barry Sadler – Pro-American and pro-military.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Iraq No Phobia&amp;quot; by Pro-Pain – It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''&amp;quot;Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Bus Stop&amp;quot; by The Hollies – Pro-romance and pro-marriage: &amp;quot;Someday my name and hers are going to be the same.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes&amp;quot; by Kevin Ayers – Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: &amp;quot;we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Union Sundown&amp;quot; by Bob Dylan – The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;People Get Ready&amp;quot; by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions – An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Get A Job&amp;quot; by The Silhouettes – Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Don't Tread on Me&amp;quot; by Metallica – Pretty self-explanatory meaning; speaks to [[Conservative values]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Hypnotize&amp;quot; by System of a Down – SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Gematria (The Killing Name)&amp;quot; by Slipknot – This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Welcome to the Family&amp;quot; by Avenged Sevenfold – A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot; by The Byrds – An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the periodic refrain &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Critical Acclaim&amp;quot; by Avenged Sevenfold – Pro-America and pro-Military.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;The Star Spangled Banner&amp;quot; – The American national anthem.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;YMCA&amp;quot; by Village People – This song gets young men excited to go to a Christian organization.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html &amp;quot;Dissident&amp;quot;] by Pearl Jam – About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics &amp;quot;Keep an open mind or else&amp;quot;] by McCarthy - about the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please add your best conservative picks. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=868693</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=868693"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T22:06:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is our growing list:&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY &amp;quot;Free Bird&amp;quot;] by Lynyrd Skynyrd - Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI &amp;quot;Wouldn't It Be Nice&amp;quot;] by the [[Beach Boys]] – Pro-marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w &amp;quot;You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)&amp;quot;] – Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and Phil Collins were popular.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU &amp;quot;Have You Forgotten?&amp;quot;] by Darryl Worley – Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 &amp;quot;Still the One&amp;quot;] by Orleans (1976) – A tribute to fidelity in relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA &amp;quot;Sweet Home Alabama&amp;quot;] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew &amp;quot;Stand By Your Man&amp;quot;] by [[Tammy Wynette]] – Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo &amp;quot;Lee Greenwood's rendition&amp;quot;] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]] – &amp;quot;As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g &amp;quot;The Man Comes Around&amp;quot;] by [[Johnny Cash]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I &amp;quot;My Love&amp;quot;] by [[Petula Clark]] – Christian love in secular form.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 &amp;quot;I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)&amp;quot;] by The Crickets – Its title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;You Light Up My Life&amp;quot; by Debbie Boone – One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&amp;amp;mode=related&amp;amp;search= &amp;quot;Jerusalem&amp;quot;]. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q &amp;quot;Brothers In Arms&amp;quot;] by [[Dire Straits]] – We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 &amp;quot;The Ascent of Stan&amp;quot;] by [[Ben Folds]] – Tells the story of a former &amp;quot;textbook hippie man&amp;quot; who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Starting All Over Again&amp;quot; by [[Petula Clark]] – Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Thank You My Lord&amp;quot; by [[Petula Clark]] – The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Brick&amp;quot; by Ben Folds Five – Shows the regret involved in abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Alive&amp;quot; by P.O.D – About being thankful for the gift of life.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html &amp;quot;Gotta Serve Somebody&amp;quot;] by [[Bob Dylan]] – &amp;quot;It may be the devil or it may be the Lord.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine] by Taylor Swift – Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Red Barchetta&amp;quot; by [[Rush]] – Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Father of Mine&amp;quot; by Everclear – A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman] by [[The Beatles]] – George Harrison said, &amp;quot;Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&amp;amp;feature=related Back in the U.S.A.] by [[Chuck Berry]] – A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM &amp;quot;Government Cheese&amp;quot;] by The Rainmakers – Humorous spoof of welfare.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k &amp;quot;Angry Young Man&amp;quot;] by [[Billy Joel]] – The doctrinaire leftist radical with &amp;quot;his fist in the air and his head in the sand&amp;quot; comes in for biting criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – The name says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ &amp;quot;Spirit In The Sky&amp;quot;] by Norman Greenbaum. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA &amp;quot;Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun&amp;quot;] by Grand Funk Railroad – A father gives his son some sage advice.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk &amp;quot;Something For Nothing&amp;quot;] by Rush – &amp;quot;You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Neighborhood Bully&amp;quot; by [[Bob Dylan]] – Israel's right to exist and defend itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Get It Right the First Time&amp;quot; by Louisiana's Le Roux – Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own.  Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Only The Young&amp;quot; by Journey – &amp;quot;The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong&amp;quot;.  An anthem for the Reagan Generation.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o &amp;quot;Yours Is No Disgrace&amp;quot;] by [[Yes]] – Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Fair Exchange&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Sparks of the Tempest&amp;quot; by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]] – Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia.  Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;In America&amp;quot; by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band – Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Storm the Embassy&amp;quot; by the Stray Cats – Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;We Must Take America Back&amp;quot; by Steve Vaus – Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot; by [[Steppenwolf]] – [[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI &amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot;] by Oingo Boingo – There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Unborn Child&amp;quot; by Seals and Crofts – This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)&amp;quot; by Steve Taylor – Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and &amp;quot;the left-wing band with their head in the sand&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Last Kiss&amp;quot; by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders – &amp;quot;Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Love Me, I'm a Liberal&amp;quot; by Phil Ochs – Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;America USA&amp;quot; by Joey Sudyka – Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU &amp;quot;Red White and Blue&amp;quot;] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk &amp;quot;Simple Man&amp;quot;] by [[Charlie Daniels]] – A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;That Smell&amp;quot; by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.&lt;br /&gt;
# Virtually anything by Toby Keith, but especially &amp;quot;Courtesy of the Red, White &amp;amp; Blue (The Angry American)&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY &amp;quot;Under God&amp;quot;] by [[Pat Boone]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Christmas Shoes&amp;quot; by NewSons – A Christmas song by a Christian band. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html &amp;quot;God Bless the USA&amp;quot;] by Lee Greenwood.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;God Bless America&amp;quot; by Irving Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU &amp;quot;No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed&amp;quot;] by Yes – &amp;quot;...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g &amp;quot;Supper's Ready&amp;quot;] by [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] – ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, &amp;quot;This is the supper of the mighty one&amp;quot;, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI &amp;quot;Your Love Is Extravagant&amp;quot;] by Casting Crowns.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 &amp;quot;What If His People Prayed&amp;quot;] by Casting Crowns.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 &amp;quot;King Without a Crown&amp;quot;] by Matisyahu – A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: &amp;quot;If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Take Me Home, Country Roads&amp;quot; by John Denver (and others) – Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Sin City&amp;quot; by the Flying Burrito Brothers – Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;I Saw the Light&amp;quot; by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions) – Redemption from sin through faith.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;No Son of Mine&amp;quot; by Genesis.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Don't Stop&amp;quot; (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac – Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Lightning Crashes&amp;quot; by Live – The joy and significance of childbirth.  &lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Takin' Care of Business&amp;quot; by Bachman-Turner Overdrive – The work ethic and promoting self-employment.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Cat's In The Cradle&amp;quot; by Harry Chapin – The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 &amp;quot;The Devil Went Down To Georgia&amp;quot;] by [[Charlie Daniels]] – A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Big Money&amp;quot; by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Real American&amp;quot; by Rick Derringer – patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&amp;amp;feature=related &amp;quot;Amazing Grace&amp;quot;] – A Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&amp;amp;feature=related &amp;quot;Go Down Moses&amp;quot;] performed by [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by Sy (Arr) Oliver.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc &amp;quot;Walking Contradiction&amp;quot;] by [[Green Day]] – Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term &amp;quot;walking contradiction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;God and Guns&amp;quot; by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Staying Alive&amp;quot; by the Bee Gees – Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: &amp;quot;we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Sympathy for the Devil&amp;quot; by the Rolling Stones – Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 &amp;quot;All In''] by Lifehouse – Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE &amp;quot;The Ballad of the Green Berets&amp;quot;] by Sergeant Barry Sadler – Pro-American and pro-military.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Iraq No Phobia&amp;quot; by Pro-Pain – It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''&amp;quot;Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Bus Stop&amp;quot; by The Hollies – Pro-romance and pro-marriage: &amp;quot;Someday my name and hers are going to be the same.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes&amp;quot; by Kevin Ayers – Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: &amp;quot;we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Union Sundown&amp;quot; by Bob Dylan – The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;People Get Ready&amp;quot; by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions – An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Get A Job&amp;quot; by The Silhouettes – Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Don't Tread on Me&amp;quot; by Metallica – Pretty self-explanatory meaning; speaks to [[Conservative values]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Hypnotize&amp;quot; by System of a Down – SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Gematria (The Killing Name)&amp;quot; by Slipknot – This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Welcome to the Family&amp;quot; by Avenged Sevenfold – A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot; by The Byrds – An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the periodic refrain &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Critical Acclaim&amp;quot; by Avenged Sevenfold – Pro-America and pro-Military.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;The Star Spangled Banner&amp;quot; – The American national anthem.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;YMCA&amp;quot; by Village People – This song gets young men excited to go to a Christian organization.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html &amp;quot;Dissident&amp;quot;] by Pearl Jam – About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics &amp;quot;Keep an open mind or else&amp;quot;] by McCarthy - about the necessity to keep an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please add your best conservative picks. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=868690</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=868690"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T22:03:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: try our quiz at Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is our growing list:&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY &amp;quot;Free Bird&amp;quot;] by Lynyrd Skynyrd - Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI &amp;quot;Wouldn't It Be Nice&amp;quot;] by the [[Beach Boys]] – Pro-marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w &amp;quot;You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)&amp;quot;] – Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and Phil Collins were popular.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU &amp;quot;Have You Forgotten?&amp;quot;] by Darryl Worley – Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 &amp;quot;Still the One&amp;quot;] by Orleans (1976) – A tribute to fidelity in relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA &amp;quot;Sweet Home Alabama&amp;quot;] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew &amp;quot;Stand By Your Man&amp;quot;] by [[Tammy Wynette]] – Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo &amp;quot;Lee Greenwood's rendition&amp;quot;] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]] – &amp;quot;As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g &amp;quot;The Man Comes Around&amp;quot;] by [[Johnny Cash]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I &amp;quot;My Love&amp;quot;] by [[Petula Clark]] – Christian love in secular form.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 &amp;quot;I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)&amp;quot;] by The Crickets – Its title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;You Light Up My Life&amp;quot; by Debbie Boone – One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&amp;amp;mode=related&amp;amp;search= &amp;quot;Jerusalem&amp;quot;]. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q &amp;quot;Brothers In Arms&amp;quot;] by [[Dire Straits]] – We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 &amp;quot;The Ascent of Stan&amp;quot;] by [[Ben Folds]] – Tells the story of a former &amp;quot;textbook hippie man&amp;quot; who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Starting All Over Again&amp;quot; by [[Petula Clark]] – Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Thank You My Lord&amp;quot; by [[Petula Clark]] – The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Brick&amp;quot; by Ben Folds Five – Shows the regret involved in abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Alive&amp;quot; by P.O.D – About being thankful for the gift of life.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html &amp;quot;Gotta Serve Somebody&amp;quot;] by [[Bob Dylan]] – &amp;quot;It may be the devil or it may be the Lord.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine] by Taylor Swift – Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Red Barchetta&amp;quot; by [[Rush]] – Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Father of Mine&amp;quot; by Everclear – A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman] by [[The Beatles]] – George Harrison said, &amp;quot;Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&amp;amp;feature=related Back in the U.S.A.] by [[Chuck Berry]] – A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM &amp;quot;Government Cheese&amp;quot;] by The Rainmakers – Humorous spoof of welfare.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k &amp;quot;Angry Young Man&amp;quot;] by [[Billy Joel]] – The doctrinaire leftist radical with &amp;quot;his fist in the air and his head in the sand&amp;quot; comes in for biting criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – The name says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ &amp;quot;Spirit In The Sky&amp;quot;] by Norman Greenbaum. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA &amp;quot;Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun&amp;quot;] by Grand Funk Railroad – A father gives his son some sage advice.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk &amp;quot;Something For Nothing&amp;quot;] by Rush – &amp;quot;You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Neighborhood Bully&amp;quot; by [[Bob Dylan]] – Israel's right to exist and defend itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Get It Right the First Time&amp;quot; by Louisiana's Le Roux – Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own.  Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Only The Young&amp;quot; by Journey – &amp;quot;The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong&amp;quot;.  An anthem for the Reagan Generation.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o &amp;quot;Yours Is No Disgrace&amp;quot;] by [[Yes]] – Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Fair Exchange&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Sparks of the Tempest&amp;quot; by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]] – Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia.  Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;In America&amp;quot; by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band – Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Storm the Embassy&amp;quot; by the Stray Cats – Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;We Must Take America Back&amp;quot; by Steve Vaus – Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot; by [[Steppenwolf]] – [[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI &amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot;] by Oingo Boingo – There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Unborn Child&amp;quot; by Seals and Crofts – This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)&amp;quot; by Steve Taylor – Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and &amp;quot;the left-wing band with their head in the sand&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Last Kiss&amp;quot; by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders – &amp;quot;Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Love Me, I'm a Liberal&amp;quot; by Phil Ochs – Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;America USA&amp;quot; by Joey Sudyka – Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU &amp;quot;Red White and Blue&amp;quot;] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk &amp;quot;Simple Man&amp;quot;] by [[Charlie Daniels]] – A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;That Smell&amp;quot; by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.&lt;br /&gt;
# Virtually anything by Toby Keith, but especially &amp;quot;Courtesy of the Red, White &amp;amp; Blue (The Angry American)&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY &amp;quot;Under God&amp;quot;] by [[Pat Boone]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Christmas Shoes&amp;quot; by NewSons – A Christmas song by a Christian band. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html &amp;quot;God Bless the USA&amp;quot;] by Lee Greenwood.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;God Bless America&amp;quot; by Irving Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU &amp;quot;No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed&amp;quot;] by Yes – &amp;quot;...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g &amp;quot;Supper's Ready&amp;quot;] by [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] – ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, &amp;quot;This is the supper of the mighty one&amp;quot;, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI &amp;quot;Your Love Is Extravagant&amp;quot;] by Casting Crowns.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 &amp;quot;What If His People Prayed&amp;quot;] by Casting Crowns.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 &amp;quot;King Without a Crown&amp;quot;] by Matisyahu – A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: &amp;quot;If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Take Me Home, Country Roads&amp;quot; by John Denver (and others) – Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Sin City&amp;quot; by the Flying Burrito Brothers – Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;I Saw the Light&amp;quot; by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions) – Redemption from sin through faith.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;No Son of Mine&amp;quot; by Genesis.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Don't Stop&amp;quot; (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac – Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Lightning Crashes&amp;quot; by Live – The joy and significance of childbirth.  &lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Takin' Care of Business&amp;quot; by Bachman-Turner Overdrive – The work ethic and promoting self-employment.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Cat's In The Cradle&amp;quot; by Harry Chapin – The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 &amp;quot;The Devil Went Down To Georgia&amp;quot;] by [[Charlie Daniels]] – A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Big Money&amp;quot; by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Real American&amp;quot; by Rick Derringer – patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&amp;amp;feature=related &amp;quot;Amazing Grace&amp;quot;] – A Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&amp;amp;feature=related &amp;quot;Go Down Moses&amp;quot;] performed by [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by Sy (Arr) Oliver.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc &amp;quot;Walking Contradiction&amp;quot;] by [[Green Day]] – Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term &amp;quot;walking contradiction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;God and Guns&amp;quot; by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Staying Alive&amp;quot; by the Bee Gees – Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: &amp;quot;we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Sympathy for the Devil&amp;quot; by the Rolling Stones – Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 &amp;quot;All In''] by Lifehouse – Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE &amp;quot;The Ballad of the Green Berets&amp;quot;] by Sergeant Barry Sadler – Pro-American and pro-military.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Iraq No Phobia&amp;quot; by Pro-Pain – It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''&amp;quot;Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Bus Stop&amp;quot; by The Hollies – Pro-romance and pro-marriage: &amp;quot;Someday my name and hers are going to be the same.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes&amp;quot; by Kevin Ayers – Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: &amp;quot;we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Union Sundown&amp;quot; by Bob Dylan – The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;People Get Ready&amp;quot; by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions – An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Get A Job&amp;quot; by The Silhouettes – Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Don't Tread on Me&amp;quot; by Metallica – Pretty self-explanatory meaning; speaks to [[Conservative values]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Hypnotize&amp;quot; by System of a Down – SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Gematria (The Killing Name)&amp;quot; by Slipknot – This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Welcome to the Family&amp;quot; by Avenged Sevenfold – A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot; by The Byrds – An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the periodic refrain &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Critical Acclaim&amp;quot; by Avenged Sevenfold – Pro-America and pro-Military.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;The Star Spangled Banner&amp;quot; – The American national anthem.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;YMCA&amp;quot; by Village People – This song gets young men excited to go to a Christian organization.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html &amp;quot;Dissident&amp;quot;] by Pearl Jam – About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics &amp;quot;Keep an open mind or else&amp;quot;] by McCarthy - about the necessity to keep an open mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please add your best conservative picks. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Baden-Wuerttemberg&amp;diff=868687</id>
		<title>Baden-Wuerttemberg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Baden-Wuerttemberg&amp;diff=868687"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T21:52:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: 2011 elections&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Baden-Wuerttemberg''' (''Baden-Württemberg'') is one of the sixteen federal states (''Bundesländer'') of [[Germany]]. It is situated in the south-west of the federal republic and shares borders - mostly following the river [[Rhine]] (''Rhein'') -  with [[Switzerland]] and [[France]]. The neighboring federal states are [[Rhineland-Palatinate]] (''Rheinland-Pfalz'') to the north, [[Hesse]] (''Hessen'') to the north-east and [[Bavaria]] (''Bayern'') to the east.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capital of Baden-Wuerttemberg is [[Stuttgart]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baden-Wuerttemberg was formed by the fusion of the former ''Bundesländer'' ''Wuerttemberg-Baden'' (''Württemberg-Baden''), ''Wuerttemberg-Hohenzollern'' (''Württemberg-Hohenzollern'') and ''Baden'', a singular process  in the history of the federal republic of Germany, as a recent attempt to fuse the ''Bundesländer'' of [[Berlin]] and [[Brandenburg]] failed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Baden-Wuerttemberg became the first ''Bundesland'' to be governed by a state premier from the Green Party, Winfried Kretschmann.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20110512-34981.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;References/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Germany]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Boise&amp;diff=868684</id>
		<title>Boise</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Boise&amp;diff=868684"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T21:43:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: 2009 population&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Boise''' is the capital city of [[Idaho]]. In 2009 it had an estimated population of 205,707.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&amp;amp;geo_id=16000US1608830&amp;amp;_geoContext=01000US|04000US19|16000US1921000&amp;amp;_street=&amp;amp;_county=boise&amp;amp;_cityTown=boise&amp;amp;_state=04000US16&amp;amp;_zip=&amp;amp;_lang=en&amp;amp;_sse=on&amp;amp;ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&amp;amp;_useEV=&amp;amp;pctxt=fph&amp;amp;pgsl=010&amp;amp;_submenuId=population_0&amp;amp;ds_name=null&amp;amp;_ci_nbr=null&amp;amp;qr_name=null&amp;amp;reg=null%3Anull&amp;amp;_keyword=&amp;amp;_industry= U.S. Census Bureau]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Insiders' Guide to Boise and Sun Valley'' by Peter Rose and John Gottberg Anderson (1998)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;References/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:US State Capitals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Idaho]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Des_Moines&amp;diff=868682</id>
		<title>Des Moines</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Des_Moines&amp;diff=868682"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T21:40:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: 2009 population&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Des Moines''', [[French]] for &amp;quot;of the monks&amp;quot;, is the capital city of [[Iowa]]. In 2009 it had an estimated population of 200,538.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&amp;amp;geo_id=16000US1921000&amp;amp;_geoContext=01000US|04000US31|16000US3128000&amp;amp;_street=&amp;amp;_county=des+moines&amp;amp;_cityTown=des+moines&amp;amp;_state=04000US19&amp;amp;_zip=&amp;amp;_lang=en&amp;amp;_sse=on&amp;amp;ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&amp;amp;_useEV=&amp;amp;pctxt=fph&amp;amp;pgsl=010&amp;amp;_submenuId=population_0&amp;amp;ds_name=null&amp;amp;_ci_nbr=null&amp;amp;qr_name=null&amp;amp;reg=null%3Anull&amp;amp;_keyword=&amp;amp;_industry= U.S. Census Bureau]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As of August 2007, [[same sex marriage]] is legal within the city.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html Iowa court rules same sex couples can marry]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Life and TImes of the Thunderbolt Kid,'' Bill Bryson's memoir of growing up in Des Moines, was a 2006 bestseller.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:US State Capitals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Iowa]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lincoln,_Nebraska&amp;diff=868678</id>
		<title>Lincoln, Nebraska</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lincoln,_Nebraska&amp;diff=868678"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T21:36:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: 2009 population&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Lincoln''' is the capital of the [[United States|American]] state of [[Nebraska]] and home to the [[University of Nebraska]]. In 2009 it had an estimated population of 254,001.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&amp;amp;geo_id=16000US3128000&amp;amp;_geoContext=&amp;amp;_street=&amp;amp;_county=lincoln&amp;amp;_cityTown=lincoln&amp;amp;_state=04000US31&amp;amp;_zip=&amp;amp;_lang=en&amp;amp;_sse=on&amp;amp;ActiveGeoDiv=&amp;amp;_useEV=&amp;amp;pctxt=fph&amp;amp;pgsl=010&amp;amp;_submenuId=population_0&amp;amp;ds_name=null&amp;amp;_ci_nbr=null&amp;amp;qr_name=null&amp;amp;reg=null%3Anull&amp;amp;_keyword=&amp;amp;_industry=]U.S. Census Bureau&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;References/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:US State Capitals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Nebraska]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Annapolis&amp;diff=868675</id>
		<title>Annapolis</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Annapolis&amp;diff=868675"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T21:31:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: population 2000&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Annapolis''' is the capital city of [[Maryland]] and the [[county seat]] of [[Anne Arundel County, MD|Anne Arundel County]]. In 2000 it had a population of 35,838.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&amp;amp;geo_id=16000US0236400&amp;amp;_geoContext=01000US|04000US02|16000US0236400&amp;amp;_street=&amp;amp;_county=annapolis&amp;amp;_cityTown=annapolis&amp;amp;_state=04000US24&amp;amp;_zip=&amp;amp;_lang=en&amp;amp;_sse=on&amp;amp;ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&amp;amp;_useEV=&amp;amp;pctxt=fph&amp;amp;pgsl=160&amp;amp;_submenuId=factsheet_1&amp;amp;ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&amp;amp;_ci_nbr=null&amp;amp;qr_name=null&amp;amp;reg=null%3Anull&amp;amp;_keyword=&amp;amp;_industry=]2000 Census Data&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;References/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Maryland Cities and Towns]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:US State Capitals]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=868670</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=868670"/>
		<updated>2011-05-13T21:24:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;FrederickT: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is our growing list:&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY &amp;quot;Free Bird&amp;quot;] by Lynyrd Skynyrd - Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI &amp;quot;Wouldn't It Be Nice&amp;quot;] by the [[Beach Boys]] – Pro-marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w &amp;quot;You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)&amp;quot;] – Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and Phil Collins were popular.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU &amp;quot;Have You Forgotten?&amp;quot;] by Darryl Worley – Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 &amp;quot;Still the One&amp;quot;] by Orleans (1976) – A tribute to fidelity in relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA &amp;quot;Sweet Home Alabama&amp;quot;] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew &amp;quot;Stand By Your Man&amp;quot;] by [[Tammy Wynette]] – Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo &amp;quot;Lee Greenwood's rendition&amp;quot;] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]] – &amp;quot;As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g &amp;quot;The Man Comes Around&amp;quot;] by [[Johnny Cash]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I &amp;quot;My Love&amp;quot;] by [[Petula Clark]] – Christian love in secular form.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 &amp;quot;I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)&amp;quot;] by The Crickets – Its title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;You Light Up My Life&amp;quot; by Debbie Boone – One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&amp;amp;mode=related&amp;amp;search= &amp;quot;Jerusalem&amp;quot;]. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q &amp;quot;Brothers In Arms&amp;quot;] by [[Dire Straits]] – We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 &amp;quot;The Ascent of Stan&amp;quot;] by [[Ben Folds]] – Tells the story of a former &amp;quot;textbook hippie man&amp;quot; who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Starting All Over Again&amp;quot; by [[Petula Clark]] – Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Thank You My Lord&amp;quot; by [[Petula Clark]] – The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Brick&amp;quot; by Ben Folds Five – Shows the regret involved in abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Alive&amp;quot; by P.O.D – About being thankful for the gift of life.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html &amp;quot;Gotta Serve Somebody&amp;quot;] by [[Bob Dylan]] – &amp;quot;It may be the devil or it may be the Lord.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine] by Taylor Swift – Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Red Barchetta&amp;quot; by [[Rush]] – Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Father of Mine&amp;quot; by Everclear – A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman] by [[The Beatles]] – George Harrison said, &amp;quot;Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&amp;amp;feature=related Back in the U.S.A.] by [[Chuck Berry]] – A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM &amp;quot;Government Cheese&amp;quot;] by The Rainmakers – Humorous spoof of welfare.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k &amp;quot;Angry Young Man&amp;quot;] by [[Billy Joel]] – The doctrinaire leftist radical with &amp;quot;his fist in the air and his head in the sand&amp;quot; comes in for biting criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – The name says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ &amp;quot;Spirit In The Sky&amp;quot;] by Norman Greenbaum. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA &amp;quot;Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun&amp;quot;] by Grand Funk Railroad – A father gives his son some sage advice.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk &amp;quot;Something For Nothing&amp;quot;] by Rush – &amp;quot;You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Neighborhood Bully&amp;quot; by [[Bob Dylan]] – Israel's right to exist and defend itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Get It Right the First Time&amp;quot; by Louisiana's Le Roux – Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own.  Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Only The Young&amp;quot; by Journey – &amp;quot;The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong&amp;quot;.  An anthem for the Reagan Generation.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o &amp;quot;Yours Is No Disgrace&amp;quot;] by [[Yes]] – Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Fair Exchange&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Sparks of the Tempest&amp;quot; by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]] – Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia.  Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;In America&amp;quot; by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band – Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Storm the Embassy&amp;quot; by the Stray Cats – Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;We Must Take America Back&amp;quot; by Steve Vaus – Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot; by [[Steppenwolf]] – [[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI &amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot;] by Oingo Boingo – There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Unborn Child&amp;quot; by Seals and Crofts – This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)&amp;quot; by Steve Taylor – Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and &amp;quot;the left-wing band with their head in the sand&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Last Kiss&amp;quot; by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders – &amp;quot;Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Love Me, I'm a Liberal&amp;quot; by Phil Ochs – Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;America USA&amp;quot; by Joey Sudyka – Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU &amp;quot;Red White and Blue&amp;quot;] by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk &amp;quot;Simple Man&amp;quot;] by [[Charlie Daniels]] – A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;That Smell&amp;quot; by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.&lt;br /&gt;
# Virtually anything by Toby Keith, but especially &amp;quot;Courtesy of the Red, White &amp;amp; Blue (The Angry American)&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY &amp;quot;Under God&amp;quot;] by [[Pat Boone]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Christmas Shoes&amp;quot; by NewSons – A Christmas song by a Christian band. &lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html &amp;quot;God Bless the USA&amp;quot;] by Lee Greenwood.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;God Bless America&amp;quot; by Irving Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU &amp;quot;No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed&amp;quot;] by Yes – &amp;quot;...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g &amp;quot;Supper's Ready&amp;quot;] by [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] – ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, &amp;quot;This is the supper of the mighty one&amp;quot;, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI &amp;quot;Your Love Is Extravagant&amp;quot;] by Casting Crowns.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 &amp;quot;What If His People Prayed&amp;quot;] by Casting Crowns.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 &amp;quot;King Without a Crown&amp;quot;] by Matisyahu – A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: &amp;quot;If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Take Me Home, Country Roads&amp;quot; by John Denver (and others) – Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Sin City&amp;quot; by the Flying Burrito Brothers – Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;I Saw the Light&amp;quot; by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions) – Redemption from sin through faith.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;No Son of Mine&amp;quot; by Genesis.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Don't Stop&amp;quot; (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac – Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Lightning Crashes&amp;quot; by Live – The joy and significance of childbirth.  &lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Takin' Care of Business&amp;quot; by Bachman-Turner Overdrive – The work ethic and promoting self-employment.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Cat's In The Cradle&amp;quot; by Harry Chapin – The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 &amp;quot;The Devil Went Down To Georgia&amp;quot;] by [[Charlie Daniels]] – A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Big Money&amp;quot; by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Real American&amp;quot; by Rick Derringer – patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&amp;amp;feature=related &amp;quot;Amazing Grace&amp;quot;] – A Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&amp;amp;feature=related &amp;quot;Go Down Moses&amp;quot;] performed by [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by Sy (Arr) Oliver.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc &amp;quot;Walking Contradiction&amp;quot;] by [[Green Day]] – Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term &amp;quot;walking contradiction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;God and Guns&amp;quot; by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]] – A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Staying Alive&amp;quot; by the Bee Gees – Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: &amp;quot;we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Sympathy for the Devil&amp;quot; by the Rolling Stones – Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 &amp;quot;All In''] by Lifehouse – Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE &amp;quot;The Ballad of the Green Berets&amp;quot;] by Sergeant Barry Sadler – Pro-American and pro-military.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Iraq No Phobia&amp;quot; by Pro-Pain – It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''&amp;quot;Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Bus Stop&amp;quot; by The Hollies – Pro-romance and pro-marriage: &amp;quot;Someday my name and hers are going to be the same.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes&amp;quot; by Kevin Ayers – Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: &amp;quot;we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Union Sundown&amp;quot; by Bob Dylan – The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;People Get Ready&amp;quot; by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions – An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Get A Job&amp;quot; by The Silhouettes – Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Don't Tread on Me&amp;quot; by Metallica – Pretty self-explanatory meaning; speaks to [[Conservative values]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Hypnotize&amp;quot; by System of a Down – SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Gematria (The Killing Name)&amp;quot; by Slipknot – This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Welcome to the Family&amp;quot; by Avenged Sevenfold – A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot; by The Byrds – An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the periodic refrain &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Critical Acclaim&amp;quot; by Avenged Sevenfold – Pro-America and pro-Military.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;The Star Spangled Banner&amp;quot; – The American national anthem.&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;YMCA&amp;quot; by Village People – This song gets young men excited to go to a Christian organization.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html &amp;quot;Dissident&amp;quot;] by Pearl Jam – About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.&lt;br /&gt;
# [http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics &amp;quot;Keep an open mind or else&amp;quot;] by McCarthy - about the necessity to keep an open mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please add your best conservative picks. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>FrederickT</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>