Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-10-24T23:34:44Z

Gelatin: /* Geology */ geologists don't say that the great lakes were formed millions of years ago, only thousands, this is consistent.

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law.</ref> As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 38 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. In other words, '''the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%'''.<ref>The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 evidences of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref>

The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, atheists are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require the world to be an implausible billions of years old.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability,<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> which further disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]].
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The expansion of the universe is accelerating, which would not occur if the [[Big Bang]] were billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent.<ref>Some insist there is hokey, unseen "[[dark energy]]" and "[[dark matter]]" to try to explain the acceleration.</ref>
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.

=== Biology ===
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence would measure at ridiculous heights, if humans were even tens of thousands of years old.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.
# Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref>
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref>
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. <ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref>

=== Geology ===
[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging".<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

Other examples include:

# The frequency of large [[earthquakes]] (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible. Large earthquakes have increased by more than 20% in only the last decade.<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php</ref>
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
# The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.
# The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref>
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref>
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref>

=== Science & Discovery ===
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref>

=== Biblical testimony ===

The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref>

''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]

== Recommended books ==

*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Radiometric dating]]
[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[Category:geology]]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-10-23T18:41:01Z

Gelatin: /* Geology */

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law.</ref> As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 38 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. In other words, '''the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%'''.<ref>The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 evidences of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref>

The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, atheists are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require the world to be an implausible billions of years old.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability,<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> which further disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]].
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The expansion of the universe is accelerating, which would not occur if the [[Big Bang]] were billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent.<ref>Some insist there is hokey, unseen "[[dark energy]]" and "[[dark matter]]" to try to explain the acceleration.</ref>
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.

=== Biology ===
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence will end up reaching ridiculously high, if humans were supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.
# Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref>
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref>
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. <ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref>

=== Geology ===
[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging".<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

Other examples include:

# The frequency of large [[earthquakes]] (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible. Large earthquakes have increased by more than 20% in only the last decade.<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php</ref>
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_environmental_disaster</ref>
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
# The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.
# The relatively recent (When geologists say relatively they mean in comparrison to a 4.54 Ga earth, Pangaea is hypothesized to have existed 175 Mya) separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref>
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref>
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref>

=== Science & Discovery ===
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref>

=== Biblical testimony ===

The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref>

''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]

== Recommended books ==

*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Radiometric dating]]
[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[Category:geology]]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-10-23T18:33:35Z

Gelatin: /* Geology */ The great lakes are not thought to have formed millions of years ago, only thousands through glacial recession.

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law.</ref> As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 38 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. In other words, '''the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%'''.<ref>The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 evidences of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref>

The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, atheists are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require the world to be an implausible billions of years old.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability,<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> which further disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]].
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The expansion of the universe is accelerating, which would not occur if the [[Big Bang]] were billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent.<ref>Some insist there is hokey, unseen "[[dark energy]]" and "[[dark matter]]" to try to explain the acceleration.</ref>
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.

=== Biology ===
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence will end up reaching ridiculously high, if humans were supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old. (Discuss, this is not intelligence, this is knowledge)
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.
# Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref>
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref>
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. <ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref>

=== Geology ===
[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging".<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

Other examples include:

# The frequency of large [[earthquakes]] (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible. Large earthquakes have increased by more than 20% in only the last decade.<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php</ref>
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
# The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.
# The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref>
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref>
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref>

=== Science & Discovery ===
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref>

=== Biblical testimony ===

The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref>

''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]

== Recommended books ==

*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Radiometric dating]]
[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[Category:geology]]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-10-23T18:31:01Z

Gelatin: /* Biology */

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law.</ref> As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 38 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. In other words, '''the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%'''.<ref>The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 evidences of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref>

The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, atheists are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require the world to be an implausible billions of years old.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability,<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> which further disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]].
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The expansion of the universe is accelerating, which would not occur if the [[Big Bang]] were billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent.<ref>Some insist there is hokey, unseen "[[dark energy]]" and "[[dark matter]]" to try to explain the acceleration.</ref>
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.

=== Biology ===
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence will end up reaching ridiculously high, if humans were supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old. (Discuss, this is not intelligence, this is knowledge)
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.
# Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref>
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref>
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. <ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref>

=== Geology ===
[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging".<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

Other examples include:

# The frequency of large [[earthquakes]] (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible. Large earthquakes have increased by more than 20% in only the last decade.<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php</ref>
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_environmental_disaster</ref>
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
# The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.
# The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref>
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref>
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref>

=== Science & Discovery ===
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref>

=== Biblical testimony ===

The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref>

''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]

== Recommended books ==

*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Radiometric dating]]
[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[Category:geology]]

Steve Jobs

2011-10-23T02:07:33Z

Gelatin: Unsupported, Discuss

[[Image:Jobs.jpg|thumb|right|160px]]
'''Steve Paul Jobs''' (1955-2011)<ref>http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/</ref>; born in Los Altos CA served as the CEO of [[Apple Inc.|Apple, Inc.]] until August 24, 2011, which he co-founded with [[Steve Wozniak]] in 1976. He also co-founded [[Pixar]] Animation Studios in 1986. In 2010, Steve Jobs was recognized as the “best-performing CEO in the world.”<ref>[http://blog.intego.com/2010/01/06/steve-jobs-worlds-best-ceo/ Steve Jobs, World's Best CEO], [[Intego|blog.intego.com]], January 6, 2010.</ref> Steve Jobs grew up in the apricot orchards which later became known as [[Silicon Valley]], and lived there with his wife and three children until his death on October 5, 2011.<ref>http://www.geocities.com/franktau/History1.html</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576410753210811910.html?mod=WSJ_Home_largeHeadline/ Steven Paul Jobs, 1955-2011], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 6, 2011.</ref>

==Biography==
Jobs lost his faith when he was twelve and he saw a Time magazine picture of starving children that disturbed him. It wasn't until several years later that Jobs professed himself to be an atheist.

Jobs left Apple in the mid-1980s after losing control of the company, but later returned in the mid-1990s to eventually restore it to preeminence. He was credited with overseeing the development and marketing of the Macintosh, the iPad, the iPhone, and the iPod.

Steve Jobs co-founded [[Pixar]] Animation Studios in 1986. Pixar merged with The [[Walt Disney Company]] in 2006, and Jobs served on Disney's board of directors. Jobs was one the very few persons to successfully run a company that takes a horizontal diversification approach (selling and marketing a variety of products that would appeal to their original consumer base). He was also one of the [[adoption success stories]].

::''I love beautiful objects. I love creating them. Negative people upset me... Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.''

Jobs co-invented 313 Apple patents, mostly on designs rather than as utility patients. This is far more than most technology executives, such as [[Bill Gates]].

Jobs was a liberal who had donated over $150,000 in soft-money to causes related to the [[Democratic Party]],<ref>http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steve_Jobs.php</ref> but there are indications Jobs became more [[conservative]] on issues like the [[public schools]] as he grew older. It is possible that Jobs promoted liberal causes simply to further his own businesses, rather than based on personal views.<ref>http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072</ref>

== Awards ==
National Technology Medal from President Reagan in 1985, before founding NeXT; Jefferson Award for Public Service in 1987; Entrepreneur of the Decade by Inc. Magazine in 1989. [http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=49]

==External links==
*[http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/jobs.html Steve Jobs] Apple-Macintosh computers-iPods.
*[http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Jobs.html Steve Paul Jobs]
*[http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html "You've got to find what you love," Jobs says] Stanford Report, June 14, 2005.
*[http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/st_essayjobs_ceo/ Steve Jobs, the Perfect CEO], ''Wired Magazine'', September 27, 2011.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jobs, Steve}}
[[Category:Apple Inc.]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Steve Jobs

2011-10-23T02:06:55Z

Gelatin:

[[Image:Jobs.jpg|thumb|right|160px]]
'''Steve Paul Jobs''' (1955-2011)<ref>http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/</ref>; born in Los Altos CA served as the CEO of [[Apple Inc.|Apple, Inc.]] until August 24, 2011, which he co-founded with [[Steve Wozniak]] in 1976. He also co-founded [[Pixar]] Animation Studios in 1986. In 2010, Steve Jobs was recognized as the “best-performing CEO in the world.”<ref>[http://blog.intego.com/2010/01/06/steve-jobs-worlds-best-ceo/ Steve Jobs, World's Best CEO], [[Intego|blog.intego.com]], January 6, 2010.</ref> Steve Jobs grew up in the apricot orchards which later became known as [[Silicon Valley]], and lived there with his wife and three children until his death on October 5, 2011.<ref>http://www.geocities.com/franktau/History1.html</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576410753210811910.html?mod=WSJ_Home_largeHeadline/ Steven Paul Jobs, 1955-2011], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 6, 2011.</ref>

==Biography==
Jobs lost his faith when he was twelve and he saw a Time magazine picture of starving children that disturbed him. It wasn't until several years later that Jobs professed himself to be an atheist.

Jobs left Apple in the mid-1980s after losing control of the company, but later returned in the mid-1990s to eventually restore it to preeminence. He was credited with overseeing the development and marketing of the Macintosh, the iPad, the iPhone, and the iPod.

Steve Jobs co-founded [[Pixar]] Animation Studios in 1986. Pixar merged with The [[Walt Disney Company]] in 2006, and Jobs served on Disney's board of directors. Jobs was one the very few persons to successfully run a company that takes a horizontal diversification approach (selling and marketing a variety of products that would appeal to their original consumer base). He was also one of the [[adoption success stories]].

::''I love beautiful objects. I love creating them. Negative people upset me... Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.''

Jobs co-invented 313 Apple patents, mostly on designs rather than as utility patients. This is far more than most technology executives, such as [[Bill Gates]].

Jobs was once a liberal who had donated over $150,000 in soft-money to causes related to the [[Democratic Party]],<ref>http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steve_Jobs.php</ref> but there are indications Jobs became more [[conservative]] on issues like the [[public schools]] as he grew older. It is possible that Jobs promoted liberal causes simply to further his own businesses, rather than based on personal views.<ref>http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072</ref>

== Awards ==
National Technology Medal from President Reagan in 1985, before founding NeXT; Jefferson Award for Public Service in 1987; Entrepreneur of the Decade by Inc. Magazine in 1989. [http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=49]

==External links==
*[http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/jobs.html Steve Jobs] Apple-Macintosh computers-iPods.
*[http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Jobs.html Steve Paul Jobs]
*[http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html "You've got to find what you love," Jobs says] Stanford Report, June 14, 2005.
*[http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/st_essayjobs_ceo/ Steve Jobs, the Perfect CEO], ''Wired Magazine'', September 27, 2011.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jobs, Steve}}
[[Category:Apple Inc.]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-10-19T20:21:52Z

Gelatin: /* Bad Info */

[[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

==Bad Info==

The info on this page seems to be inaccurate, recent studies show that religious people are around 50% more likely to be obese than non believers, or at least non worshipers. Furthermore obesity occurrences in the United States seem to be centered around the Bible Belt and more Christian-Conservative States. Perhaps instead of criticizing other groups we should begin a campaign to educate fellow Christians and help people make healthier choices in their life. In my opinion, not taking care of your body is a sin, I think we should strive to make people healthier and perhaps start a campaign such as the successful [[Question Evolution Campaign]]. Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700124603/Study-finds-link-between-religion-obesity.html Gelatin

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-10-19T20:18:43Z

Gelatin:

User talk:KevinDavis

2011-10-19T20:05:29Z

Gelatin:

== I want to start correcting misspelled words ==

:Go right ahead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:30, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. I have a script searching for commonly misspelled words at the moment. Hopefully it will return something. [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] 09:38, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

==Spell check==
In case of essays where it says no other contributions, I think minor spelling corrections are fine. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ok thank you. I'll refrain if a correction would change the meaning at all (I don't know why it would, but still). [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] 09:37, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== RE:James Bond? ==

Yes, that is correct.--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 13:40, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Style ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Samuel_Johnson&action=historysubmit&diff=912711&oldid=912612 Regarding this]: there are two ways to approach quotes and punctuation. One format (which I prefer) is to only have the quotes represent the quote punctuation, i.e. if there is a comma or period at the end of the quote then put that punctuation, if not leave punctuation outside of the quote. Some others prefer to have all punctuation within a quote. One is based on quotation correctness logic, the other is based on uniformity. Which does Conservapedia prefer so that can be established (or you'll have to be doing a lot of changes to switch it over :) )? I do have a program that can swap the punctuation more easily so I can handle some of it without a problem. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 10:19, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
:I was always taught that punctuation is placed within quotes, regardless of context or content (with a few rare exceptions, none of which I've seen used here). I've used that method for years in my work, and it's what I pass on to my students. However, if you have any lingering questions, I would ask [[User:Aschlafly]], since he's who I've turned to for help with other issues. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 10:22, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
::[http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_%28speech%29_marks_punctuation_in_or_out.htm Looking briefly] online, it appears it is more of a UK/US thing, and looking at some of my critical books it seems to be a pre-1980 (logic) vs post-1980 (uniform). [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 10:47, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
:::As my education has always been in the US, perhaps that's why I defer to it. I would always use the US standard, since that's my personal preference, but if you choose to alternate between them, it would make sense to use the US standard for American web sites (of which this site is an example) and the UK standard for UK sites. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:40, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== Pearl S. Buck and ''The Good Earth'' ==

Buck living in China was suspicious? Really? A child of Christian missionaries stationed in China who later married a Christian missionary? How is that suspicious?

I admit I haven't read the book in a while, so I would appreciate it if you would please explain and ''reference'' the connections to communism you believe exist in ''The Good Earth'' - otherwise I'm going to remove it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Later in life, Buck was highly critical of her father; specifically, see her work ''Fighting Angel'', which portrays her father in less than a flattering light. Buck explicitly described her father's missionary work as part and parcel of Western imperialism. Hardly a positive view of evangelical efforts, wouldn't you agree? Also, several of her political views (particularly, her support for "women's rights" and the left-leaning progressive movements) led to substantial disagreement between her and the Presbyterian group that employed her as a missionary, thus leading directly to her resignation from that group. Finally, her husband worked primarily as an agricultural economist for the Chinese government; his missionary work was a distant second to his agricultural studies. Marxists critized his work in later years, but the vast majority of this criticism occurred during the Cultural Revolution in China, which in its nationalistic fervor lashed out at all ideas Western, regardless of their political orientation.

:I believe I have presented enough about Pearl S. Buck and her husband to satisfy your curiosity. As for ''The Good Earth'' itself, I won't engage you with too much detail, for the sake of brevity. However, the novel contains a sizeable amount of discussion of the protagonist's agrarian background, which exemplifies the agrarian school of thought popular with Chinese Communists. Mao himself was famous for his application of Marxist principles to the primarily agrarian economy of China, despite Marx's idea that a revolution could only occur in an advanced industrial society. Although ''The Good Earth'' contains elements of Algerian novels of the 19th century, it also contains numerous anti-capitalist implications, i.e. the mob that destroys the house of a wealthy city dweller, and Wang Lung's sadness at the end of the novel, despite his hard work and the affluence he has provided for his family. Finally, his actions involving the concubine Lotus make me question the moral standing of the author.

:I hope that the information above is informative; if you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 19:12, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::Kevin, Sorry I haven't responded before this - we've recently moved, and our house is decorated in the Early American Box motif, as well as I lost a friend way too young this past week. I'm hoping to get a chance this weekend to pick up a copy of ''The Good Earth'', and maybe one or two others written by Buck, so I can read/re-read them before trying to discuss them with you! ;-) As I said previously, it's been *ahem* a year or two since I've read anything by her, and at the time, I probably just read it to enjoy the story, without looking for any deeper meaning/intent. Thanks for being patient with me! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My apologies on my late response as well. Normally, I am completely unable to access the site because of connection problems on the server end, so I can't check my talk page or see that you have replied. I think reading ''The Good Earth'' would certainly be helpful. However, if you wish to continue our discussion, could you perhaps email me at the email address on my user page? As of now, that is the only way I can reliably continue our discussion, unfortunately. My condolences on your friend, as well. I've lost friends and family members of my own in recent years, and even though the emotional pain is never the same between people, I can certainly understand how difficult it can be. Take care, [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 14:25, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good stuff ==

Excellent work on the categories just lately!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you! I hadn't explored Mediawiki's Special Pages before, but I found that page and figured it was a good place to apply my editing time. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 08:29, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
::That's good news. I've been making a dent in the uncategorized list lately by doing a few each day, but there are still a few hundred. Well done on [[Goat]] in particular - that had been on the list for a long time indeed.
::You might find [[User:CPalmer/Interiotlinks|this page of links]] useful in addition to the Special Pages page, for maintenance-type things-to-do.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Spam ==

It seems that you were right about the spam. Good vigilance!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:36, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
:Happy to help as much as I can! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:38, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

== RE: Tables ==

HTML element aren't just for presentation; HTML elements have semantic values. Tables are only meant to be used to create something with rows and columns, ''and'' they're supposed to represent tabled as well. The div element is meant to create and represent blocks. The simplified MediaWiki syntax for tables is meant to replace table-relate elements, not the div element. In addition, HTML is a markup language, not a programming language. I don't need to be a software developer in order to understand it. Webpage designs and online publications are my specialty; I know HTML and CSS inside and out. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:34, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
:Hi Michael. I know HTML isn't a programming language, and I didn't refer to it as such. The reason I stated that the Mediawiki developers probably understand it better than you or I is because web developers normally have a high level of experience with HTML, ''as well as'' the programming languages behind a web site. For example, PHP, which outputs raw HTML code when run through a web server, requires knowledge of HTML. If you're exceptionally worried about semantics, then there's probably no harm in your corrections. However, for someone who lists on his user page that he's a sysop at a wiki, please remember that replies to talk page posts should go on talk pages. As someone with a lot of web development experience, please remember that. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 15:49, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Alright, but didn't I post my reply on a talk page? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 16:05, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
:::My apologies; in my haste to post before I left I wasn't clear enough. Normally, replies should be placed on the same talk page as the post to which they're responding. In this case, it would have made logical sense to post your reply on your talk page, since that's where my comment was placed. It keeps threads together and prevents subjects from being broken up amongst numerous pages. Basic Internet sense, as far as I know. Just something to keep in mind for the future; thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:09, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Alright. I'll keep that in mind. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:05, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

==Journalism==
Thank you so much! That really means a lot to me. And I plan to hold myself to a high standard. Unfortunately, I don't think Andrew and Conservative saw that comment the same way you did. Given all their talking about the "liberal mainstream media bias" and that I'm not in any of Andrew's classes, I worry that they might distrust me in the future. Conservative has already accused me of being an "obsessive atheist" for my questions once. Do I have reason to worry or am I being a little paranoid? :/ --[[User:SpenserL|SpenserL]] 14:44, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know enough to comment on that particular issue. There is very much a liberal bias in many "mainstream" media outlets, but I think the problem is not so much that the people running them are liberal; these people simply do not care, more often than not. Although that sounds bleak, it means that biases that occur do so as a result of individual people (the majority, unfortunately) with those political beliefs. This gives you a great chance, because if you are actually free from bias, your publications will reflect that. The institutional bias occurs because most people in the business are ''not'' free of such biases. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 15:45, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

==My Source==
"Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical"."
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Abortion

2011-10-19T18:12:40Z

Gelatin: /* Atheists and abortion */

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A human fetus in the womb]]
'''Abortion''' is the induced termination of a [[pregnancy]],<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> often causing [[fetal pain]]. Abortion is a billion-dollar industry<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html</ref><ref>http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247</ref><ref>For example, Dr. George Tiller "estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000."[http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090327/D976JVSG4.html]</ref> in the [[United States]]<ref>Over 52,000,000 babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973.[http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042]</ref> and Western Europe except for [[Ireland]], [[Malta]] and [[Poland]], where it has been abolished.<ref>http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=50451</ref><ref>On April 10, 2007, Portugal legalized abortion up until the 10th week of pregnancy, with some conditions placed on the obtaining of consent for the abortion.</ref><ref>God warns in His word that a nation that sheds innocent blood will not prosper. (Deuteronomy 19:11-13)</ref> [[Abortion in Poland]] declined by 99% after [[communism]] was overthrown, and women's health has dramatically improved there due to fewer abortions.<ref>http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html</ref>

'''About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their fetus (unborn child) decide not to abort'''.<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/145703/abortion_foes_use_ultrasound__focus_on_the_family_budgets/ . Note, however, that other variables such as abortion-coercive settings may reduce this percentage.</ref> Millions of women who had an abortion later suffer psychologically or physically from it, and support groups exist to help.<ref>http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20020120abortion0120p3.asp</ref> Many victims of abortion find healing by speaking out against, and discouraging, similar harm to other mothers and their children.<ref>"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born," observed President [[Ronald Reagan]]. He also observed, "With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution. I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child ''is not a living human being'', then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us."</ref>

"'''Abortion doesn't solve your problems, it only creates different ones'''," warned a full-page ad by many women who had abortions.<ref>http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/signaturead/ad.pdf</ref> '''Many women begin regretting their abortion before they even leave the abortion clinic'''. In some cases, women begin regretting their abortion just before it is performed,<ref>In one case where a woman changed her mind from inside the abortion clinic, she "called her friend from inside the abortion clinic and arranged for her to come 'rescue' her." [http://www.40daysforlife.com/southfield/index.cfm?load=page&page=30]</ref> but are told by abortionists that it is too late to change their mind because they already signed a consent form (which is a lie - it is never too late to withdraw consent for an abortion).

Abortion always ends the life of the unborn child, typically by dismemberment. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, future premature birth, mental illness, and other long-term health problems for the mother, as detailed below. Sometimes women die from abortion.<ref>See "Documented Incidents of 365 Women Who Have Been Killed by "Safe" and Legal Abortion." [http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTM 365 women who have been killed by 'Legal' abortion]</ref>

== Mental Health Risks From Abortion ==
A comprehensive review of literature, published in the ''British Journal of Psychiatry'' suggests that "there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion."<ref name="BJP">{{cite web|url = http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/A11.full#sec-3|title =Abortion, mental health and dental disease|publisher = [[British Journal of Psychiatry]]|quote=A comprehensive review of the literature suggests that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion. Coleman (pp. 180–186) suggests that these risks need to be reflected in the delivery of abortion services, and raises the thorny issue that 90% of UK abortions are justified on the presumption that abortion actually reduces the risk to mental health associated with continuing the pregnancy. There is an increasing awareness of increased comorbid physical illness in patients with severe mental illness. Kisely and colleagues (pp. 187–193) found that the levels of advanced dental disease were increased threefold in patients with severe mental illness. The authors suggest that there needs to be improved recognition of this problem – reflected in a more proactive approach to dental hygiene in these patients.|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}</ref><ref name="DavenportMD">{{cite web|url = http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/major_study_links_suicide_and_other_mental_health_problems_to_abortion.html|title =Major Study Links Suicide and Other Mental Health Problems to Abortion|publisher = [[American Thinker]]|quote=An important meta-analysis published today in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrates that nearly 10% of mental health problems in women are directly attributable to abortion. "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009," by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green University, shows that women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide. This meta-analysis combines 22 studies of 877,181 women, 163, 831 of whom have had abortions. A meta-analysis is an especially powerful type of study because it includes a large number of subjects, and by combining studies is much more reliable than a single study.|author=Mary L. Davenport, MD|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}</ref>

== Abortion and Breast Cancer ==
The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> "A new study coming from researchers in [[Sri Lanka]] finds women who had abortions ... [had a] 3.42 [increased risk] ... compared with those who kept their baby. ... The Sri Lankan study is the fourth epidemiological study in fourteen months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, including studies from the U.S., China and Turkey."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat6451.html</ref> LifeNews also reported in 2010 that a [[National Cancer Institute]] researcher admitted there was a link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html</ref> Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy.<ref>http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm</ref> A study at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center published in 2009 confirmed a 40% increase in risk in breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/01/breast-cancer-oral-contraceptives-abortion-and-lies.html</ref><ref>It is undisputed that childbirth protects against breast cancer, and thus early termination of pregnancy must increase the risk of cancer for the mother compared to carrying that same pregnancy to birth.</ref> Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades.<ref>http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Tobacco-ChronologyJul98.htm</ref>
[[Image:Abortion Hurts Women.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Walk for Life rally]]
A new study on breast cancer in Turkey published in April 2009 in the peer-reviewed World Journal of Surgical Oncology found, through a surveying process, that induced abortion was a statistically significant cause of breast cancer risk. The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk….”<ref>http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37</ref>

Specifically, the study found that Turkish women who received one or more induced abortions had a 66% higher risk of breast cancer than women who never had an abortion.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072903.html</ref> <ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/090728/index.htm</ref>

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion.<ref>Janet R. Daling et al., "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion," 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584</ref><ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm</ref> She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."<ref>L.A. Daily News, Sept. 1997.</ref> Similarly, an early study published in Japan in 1957 showed that women who have abortions have a much higher risk of breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.<ref>Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48:1-63.</ref>

In a peer-reviewed medical journal, Karen Malec observed that:<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref>

:Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link [between abortion and] breast cancer have been published. Twenty-nine report risk elevations. Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., a specialist in breast cancer an a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, has explained the physiology and epidemiology of the abortion-breast cancer link. She made the following observation:<ref>Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).</ref>

:This past August in Minneapolis, Patrick Carroll, director of the Pension and Population Research Institute of London, presented a paper to the largest gathering of statisticians in North America. '''He showed that abortion was the best predictor of breast cancer in Britain.''' Breast cancer is the only cancer in Britain which has its highest incidence and mortality rate among the upper rather than lower social classes. Abortion before a full term pregnancy and late pregnancy were the best explanations for this incidence. He also found that there had been a 70% increase risk of breast cancer between 1971 and 2002 and that for women between 50 and 54 years of age incidence was highly correlated with abortion.

Demographic evidence of abortion causing breast cancer includes the following. Breast cancer rates are far lower in Western countries that prohibited abortion than in those that promoted it. Ireland, which virtually bans abortion, reportedly has a lifetime rate of breast cancer of only 1 in 13, nearly half the rate of 1 in 7.5 in the United States.<ref>"Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).</ref> The rate of breast cancer increases steadily as one travels from Ireland, where abortion is illegal, to Northern Ireland, where abortion is legal but rare, to England, where abortion is common. <ref> R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).</ref>

In Romania, abortion was illegal under two decades of rule by the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the country enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the entire world during that time, far lower than comparable Western countries. Romania's breast cancer rate was an astounding one-sixth the rate of the United States.<ref>A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).</ref> But after the execution of Ceausescu on Christmas Day, 1989, Romania has taken the opposite approach, embracing abortion to the point that Romania now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.<ref>N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).</ref> One Romanian observer decried, "The liberalization of abortions in Romania in 1990, the significant increase of the number of abortions at relatively short intervals, determined a rise in the incidence of breast and uterine cervix cancer in my country."<ref>Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).</ref>

Studies on rats, which are an accepted method for identifying causes of cancer in humans, further confirm that abortion does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer. As Dr. [[Joel Brind]] observed, "Researchers also widely admit to the biological plausibility of abortion as an independent cause of breast cancer, through the estrogen-mediated stimulation of breast growth in the absence of differentiation. This was demonstrated experimentally in rats in the landmark experiments of Russo and Russo."<ref>[[Joel Brind]], "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to
carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).</ref> Additional scientific information on the abortion-breast cancer link is available [http://www.bcpinstitute.org here].

An expert (Dr. Lynn Rosenberg) hired to defend abortion felt compelled to admit, under cross-examination, that a woman increases her risk for breast cancer by having an abortion compared to carrying her pregnancy to childbirth:<ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm</ref>

:Question by the attorney: 'So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she carries the pregnancy to term, [is that] correct?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'Probably, yes.'

:Question: 'Looking at that another way, let's compare two women. Let's say both got pregnant at age 15-- one terminates the pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to get married and have two kids, say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15.'

Despite the overwhelming evidence -- and inescapable logic -- for abortion increasing breast cancer, promoters of abortion cite flawed articles in an attempt to deny the link.<ref>The flaws in these articles are exposed in [[Harvard abortion study]] and [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf].</ref>

As Dr. Lanfranchi has explained:<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf</ref>

:Well-documented breast physiology accounts for the fact that oral contraceptives and abortion are risk factors for breast cancer. There is an effort to suppress this information by federal agencies and those in academic medicine. Without this information, women cannot make a fully informed choice about their method of fertility control or about whether to maintain an unplanned pregnancy. Medical ethics demands that they be informed.

Pro-choice should include ''informed'' choice.<ref>The Archdiocese of St. Louis, for example, remarked about abortions and increased risk for breast cancer: "To dismiss that link is irresponsible." [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5620863.html]</ref> Yet efforts continue to suppress awareness that abortion increases breast cancer. Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed as explained in [[National Cancer Institute on Abortion]].

Just as organizations denied or failed to disclose the connection between smoking and lung cancer, many organizations aligned with [[liberal]] politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection.

[[File:Smelliesdoublecrochet.jpg|right|thumb|250px| The Smellie's double crochet abortion tool was used to grab and forcibly remove the fetus from the womb.]]

== Abortion Causes Future Harm with Premature Births ==

"At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs)."<ref>Brent Rooney and Byron C. Calhoun, "Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births," 8 J. Am. Physicians & Surgeons 46 (Summer 2003). [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf]</ref> Premature birth tragically causes brain damage, and an array of other severe, lifelong injuries ranging from Cerebral Palsy to blindness, or even death, and few mothers would knowingly increase the risk of that happening. "There are at least seventeen (17) studies that have found that previous induced abortions increase preterm birth risk” and thereby increase debilitating Cerebral Palsy in children."<ref>Brent Rooney, Letter, 96 European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 239 (2001) (citations omitted).</ref>

In 2008, the generally pro-abortion British medical journal, ''The Lancet'', admitted that a procedure often used in abortion increase the risk of premature birth:<ref>Dr, Jay D. Iams, Dr. Robert Romero, Jennifer F. Culhane (PhD), Dr. Robert L. Goldenberg. Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth. Lancet 2008;371:164-175. While the text of this article conceals the connection with abortion, it cites as support for its claims two studies showing how abortion increases risk of premature birth: the 2004 'Ancel' study of ten (10) European countries and the 2005 'Moreau' study that used French subjects. Ancel P-Y, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizoilles M-J, Kaminski M. History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey. Human Reproduction. 2004;112:734-740. Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY et al. Previous I induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery; Results of the EPIPAGE study. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2005; 112:430-437.</ref>

:"For example, greater public and professional awareness of evidence that repeated uterine instrumentation--eg, uterine curettage or endometrial biopsy--is associated with increased risk of subsequent preterm birth might over time influence decision-making about the procedure."

Researchers Rooney and Calhoun observed:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Large studies have reported a doubling of [early premature birth] EPB risk from two prior IAs. Women who had four or more IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of [extremely early premature births] XPB, an increase of 800 percent. These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.

Demographic evidence of how abortion increases premature birth includes the following:

:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): "[T]he abortion rate for black women has been approximately '''three times''' as high as that for white women (range: 2.6--3.1) since 1991"<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm (emphasis added)</ref>

:''Science Daily'''s report on a study by the Washington University School of Medicine: "African-American women are '''three times''' more likely to deliver babies three to 17 weeks prematurely than Caucasian women"<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070209074144.htm (emphasis added)</ref>

In 2002 an article entitled "Preterm Birth: A Continuing Challenge" noted that premature births are abnormally high in the United States, citing a study that observed that a previous abortion is a "risk factor[] for both infertility and preterm birth."<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595132/</ref>

The rate of premature birth is elevated by the same amount as the abortion rate, as expected if abortion increases the risk of premature birth.

== Other Health Risks from Abortion ==

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in 2007 that:<ref>''Gonzales v. Carhart'', 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1634 (2007).</ref>

:While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano ''et al.'' as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ''ibid.''

A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.<ref>D.C. Reardon, P.G. Ney, F.J. Scheuren, J.R. Cougle, P.K. Coleman, T. Strahan, "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women," 95 Southern Medical Journal 8, at 834-41 (August 2002).</ref>

In [[England]], the "Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health." The medical royal college warned that women who have abortions may be at risk of mental health problems.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece</ref> A New Zealand study found that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16405636</ref> The researcher in this study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it. <ref>http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html</ref>

The study concludes with the following statement:
{{cquote|These findings are inconsistent with the current consensus on the psychological effects of abortion. In particular, in its 2005 statement on abortion, the American Psychological Association concluded that “well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age” (American Psychological Association, 2005). This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion (Cougle et al., 2003; Gissler et al., 1996; Reardon & Cougle, 2002). <ref>http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html</ref>}}

Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand study stated:
{{cquote|It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures." <ref>http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060120-091648-6456r.htm</ref>}}

Another study published in the OB/GYN Survey detailed long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortions.<ref>J.M. Thorp, Jr., K.E. Hartmann, and E.M. Shadigian, "Long-Term Physical & Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence," 58 OB/GYN Survey 1, at 67-79 (2003)</ref>

Suicide rates among women who had abortions are six times higher than women who gave birth in the prior year.<ref>http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/Page8.html</ref> Overall, deaths from suicide, homicide and accidents were 248% higher after an abortion, as found by a 13-year study in Finland of its entire population.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

In the United States, only one state (Missouri) requires that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion.<ref>Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.080 prohibits an abortion by a physician "who does not have clinical privileges at a hospital which offers obstetrical or gynecological care located within thirty miles of the location at which the abortion is performed or induced."</ref> In the other 49 states, an abortion patient can and often is left without prompt medical care by the treating physician.

One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks. She "became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state2137.html</ref> The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
__TOC__ 

==Abortion Alternatives==
[[Optionline]] provides consultants that connects individuals to nearby pregnancy centers that offer the following services: free pregnancy tests and pregnancy information; Information about the risks of abortion and the morning after pill; medical services, including [[STD]] tests; early ultrasounds and pregnancy confirmation. <ref>http://www.pregnancycenters.org/</ref> In addition, some of these centers provide information regarding free housing to women who are facing housing concerns.<ref>http://www.pregnancycenters.org/</ref>

The primary alternative to abortion is adoption. [[Liberty Godparent Foundation]] is a [[Christian]] organization focused on improving the lives of unwed pregnant teens, babies and adoptive families by providing two alternatives, The Liberty Godparent Maternity Home and Family Life Services Adoption Agency.<ref>http://www.godparent.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=59</ref>. [[Catholic Social Services]] provides adoption assistance to people of all beliefs in addition to supporting families in need.

== Abortion Industry and How It Targets Minority Communities ==
[[File:4287336112 d3f9126c99.jpg|right|thumb|325px|According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of [[Planned Parenthood]] abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/muriel215/4287336112/ Flickr, see Creative commons license agreement)] ]]
"Each day '''1,786''' African American children are aborted." According to the [[U.S.]] Census of 2006, African Americans are at 1.96 birth rate which is beneath the replacement level of 2.1. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1685410938.html African American Pro-Life Group Holds Protest at NAACP] Christian News Network, July 13, 2009</ref> At the continued rate, [[racism]] by abortion will decimate the black population of the U.S.

According to writer George Grant, the author of ''Killing Angel'':

"During the 1980s when [[Planned Parenthood]] shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods...Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools....None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.” <ref>http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm</ref>

Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 was 42.7% of its total abortions. <ref>http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT</ref>. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.<ref>http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT</ref>

According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html</ref>

== Political Support of Abortion ==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html</ref> EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

:providing health information to abortion patients;

:requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and

:providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles.

== History of Abortion ==
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|250px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] advocated induced abortion.<ref>http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>]]
''Please also see:'' [[History of abortion]]

The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].

The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref>http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>}}

[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html</ref>

Prior to 1973 abortion was illegal in most of the United States, though a few states (such as Hawaii and New York) allowed it with restrictions.<ref>''A Timeline of Reproductive Rights'' [http://ecampus.bentley.edu/org/wc/reproductiverights.html The Women's Center]</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are lawful under the [[U.S. Constitution]] up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb, and an accompanying decision issued the same day captioned [[Doe v. Bolton]] essentially legalized abortion in the unlimited discretion of the abortionist at any time during pregnancy, up to and including birth. Conservatives immediately criticized these decisions as examples of [[Judicial Activism]].

In 2008, worldwide there were approximately 115,000 abortions done per day.<ref>http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html</ref> In 2008, approximately 83% of all abortions were performed in developing countries and 17% occurred in developed countries.<ref>http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html</ref>

States may regulate abortion, such as requiring a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors. Abortion clinics often fail to comply with the health standards of surgical facilities, and States can require compliance (but often do not, resulting in discomfort and harm to the victims of abortion). Many abortionists lack hospital admitting privileges at nearby facilities, so women having complications must go on their own to emergency rooms to see physicians unfamiliar with what actually happened. For any other operation the cost of treating complications is included in the cost of the operation, but for abortions the abortion clinics take their money and typically do not pay for the care of complications.

The more pro-abortion the State regulations are, the larger the number of abortion clinics it will have. [[Arizona]], though a pro-life State, has a regulatory system that results in twelve abortion clinics operating within its borders. In contrast, [[Mississippi]] has only one abortion clinic, and [[Missouri]] has only two.

=== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ===
''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|290px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]‎In 1942 [[Adolf Hitler]] declared:
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html</ref>}}

After [[World War II]], the War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten [[Nazi]] leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortion," which the tribunal considered a "crime against humanity."<ref>http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_25.asp#But%20didn%E2%80%99t%20Hitler%20oppose%20abortion?</ref>

== Atheists and abortion ==
The [[Barna Group]] found concering [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]] that those who hold to the worldviews of [[atheism]] or [[agnosticism]] in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard</ref> Oddly enough, atheists have a lower rate of abortion than other religious groups, which points to people who call themselves Christian being hypocrites.

==American Liberals and Abortion==
According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-abortion views. <ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref>

==Evolutionary Thought and Abortion==
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives]]. [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of aborting babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>http://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>http://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

==A Poll on Reasons for Abortions==

[[File:AbortionReasons.jpg‎|thumb|400px| Primary reasons women reported for undergoing abortions]]

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is not a [[conservative]] or [[pro-life]] organization, conducted a poll of more than 1,200 patients undergoing induced abortions at 11 large-scale [[abortion facilities]] in the United States. The women were asked to identify reasons for seeking abortion, singling out the primary reason. An additional 38 women at four sites were interviewed in-depth.<ref name="agiSurvey">[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf Lawrence Finer, et al., "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives", ''Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health'', September 2005]</ref>

The poll omitted any reference to whether the women were able to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before choosing to have an abortion. For the vast majority of women who have abortion, the reason is a lack of knowledge about the unborn child as displayed by an ultrasound.

Among reasons provided to the women as part of the poll, the two most common selections were "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" (74%) and "I can't afford a baby now" (73%).<ref name="agiSurvey"/> Concerns about their own health were mentioned by only 13% of the women, while only 12% mentioned concerns about the baby's health, though only 3% and 4% respectively gave those as their primary reason for seeking abortion.<ref name="agiSurvey"/>

Interestingly, only 14% indicated "[[husband]] or partner wants me to have an abortion" as a reason, down from 24% in a previous survey in 1987.<ref name="agiSurvey"/> This conflicts with research on women post-abortion, among whom 64% reported feeling pressured by others to abort.<ref name="reardon">[http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortionFactSheet.pdf David Reardon, "Forced Abortion in America", April 2010]</ref>

What is often ignored in studies of why women submit to abortions is an ambivalence by some in early pregnancy. Such ambivalence typically resolves when the mother becomes more aware of her unborn child, as displayed by an [[ultrasound]].<ref>Lederman, ''Psychosocial Adaptation in Pregnancy'', 1984</ref><ref>"The Unwanted Pregnancy," ''Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology'', 1970, Cited in Gardner, ''Abortion: The Personal Dilemma'', 1972</ref><ref>Nichols and Humenick, ''Childbirth Education: Practice, Research, and Theory'', 1988</ref>

==Ultrasound images==

*http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/frames.htm
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/drakelelane/388759116/
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/13_weeks.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/ultrasound_3d.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/triple_jump.htm

== See Also ==
*[[Conservapedia:Pro-life Project|Conservapedia Pro-life Project]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Abortion Directory of abortion related articles]
*[http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm Abortion and breast cancer in New Zealand]
*[[Abortion and the Bible]]
*[[Abortion and eugenics]]
*[[Abortion Facts]]
*[[Abortion funding]]
*[[Abortion genocide]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Abortion rates by US state]]
*[[Abortionist]]
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]
*[[More News/Abortion|Articles about '''Abortion''' from "More News"]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Separate Life|Essay on abortion]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Fetus]]
*[[Harvard abortion study]]
*[[Abortion breast cancer studies]]
*[[Homosexual activists and abortion]]
*[[Margaret Sanger]]
*[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf Minnesota official abortion statistics]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Planned Parenthood]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]
*[[Taxpayer-funded abortion]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/ Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.carm.org/abortion.htm Abortion] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
*[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews.com]
*[http://www.ProLifeOnCampus.com/ Pro Life on Campus]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/abortion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Abortion], [[Accuracy In Media]]
{{Abortion}}
{{Liberalism}}

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

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Salt

2011-10-14T15:57:21Z

Gelatin:

A '''salt''' is a compound consisting of a metal and a non metal that are bound by [[ionic]] bonds. They can be the resultant product of a [[conjugate acid]] and [[conjugate base]] in an [[acid-base reaction]]. Salts have an overall neutral charge. Most salts are made by reacting an [[acid]] and a [[base]].

In common usage, '''salt''' often refers to sodium chloride (NaCl), known as table salt. Salt is used as a seasoning and a preservative. It can be formed by the reaction of [[sodium hydroxide]] (NaOH) and [[hydrochloric acid]] (HCl).

Salt is found naturally in salt water, like seas and oceans.

Salt is also used as a de-icing agent for roads and walkways during the winter months.

According to the [[Bible]], [[Lot]]'s wife was converted into a pillar of salt when she looked back at the destruction of [[Sodom]].

==Bonneville Salt Flats==
30,000 acres of Utah that was part of an ancient lake basin named after explorer Captain B.L.E. Bonneville and his 1830 expeditions. 15,000 years ago it was an ancient lake the size of [[Lake Michigan]]. The salt surface contains potassium, magnesium lithium and sodium chloride (common table salt). <ref>[http://www.utah.com/playgrounds/bonneville_salt.htm The Bonneville Salt Flats] Utah.com</ref> A place so flat you seem to see the curvature of the planet and so barren not even the simplest life forms can exist. Today, it is a world famous automobile race point. The world record land speed set there was Gary Gabolich's rocket car the "Blue Flame", attained 622.4 miles per hour in 1970.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Utah]]
[[category:Chemical Compounds]]
[[category:Food and Drink]]

Gold

2011-10-14T15:53:53Z

Gelatin:

{{element | name=Gold | symbol=Au | anumber=79 | noe=79 | amass=196.96655 amu}}
[[Image:gold1.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Gold nugget]]
'''Gold''' is a chemical [[element]]. Gold is in group 11, the [[copper]] group, it has 79 protons in its nucleus. It is a precious [[metal]] which has been used as [[currency]]. Gold is found in nature as nuggets or grains in rocks, underground and in deposits. It is a soft, shiny, yellow metal.

== Purity ==
The purity of gold in a compound is measured in [[Carat|Karats]], with 24 karats being pure gold. 18 karat gold is three quarters gold, one quarter other [[elements]], and so forth. Gold is usually in alloys because it is soft and pliable.

== Value ==
Due to its characteristics being both resistant to oxidisation and rarity on [[Earth]], gold is seen as very valuable. Gold is the basis for a monetary standard used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Gold is currently in excess of $1400 per [[ounce]].[http://goldprice.org/gold-price.html]

== Uses==
Because gold is highly conductive and very resistant to [[oxidation]], it is vital in electronics. Gold plating is used on switch contacts, printed circuit boards, and device leads. There is enough gold in electronic devices to make it worthwhile to process discarded devices in order to reclaim the gold in them.

Gold was one of the three [[Gifts of the Magi]], along with [[frankincense]] and [[myrrh]].<ref>Matthew 2:11 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat002.html#11]</ref>

Gold is also used in [[jewelry]]. However, the [[New Testament]] instructs [[Christian]] [[women]] not to wear gold or [[pearl]]s.<ref>I Timothy 2:9 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ti/1Ti002.html#9]</ref> Other uses of gold include aerospace, awards, bullion, coinage, computers, currency backing, dentistry, electronics, glassmaking, gold gilding and gold leaf and medical. <ref>[http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml The Many Uses of Gold], Geology.com, accessed December 11, 2008</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{Template:Periodic table}}
[[Category:Elements]]
[[Category:Metals]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-14T15:48:57Z

Gelatin:

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

This article seems like it is trying to endorse Youtube user ShockofGod more than explain anything or offer any useful information. USer:Gelatin
:You are not being very specific when it comes to supporting your contention. It seems like you are just spoiling for a pointless internet argument. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:00, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well in six of the sections on the article it makes a direct reference to the youtube user ShockofGod which makes it seem like more of an endorsement to him than to the actual campaign, in addition it puts too much priority on him as opposed to other evangelicals with the same message. [[Gelatin]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-14T15:48:22Z

Gelatin:

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-14T00:30:18Z

Gelatin:

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-14T00:26:42Z

Gelatin:

Worst College Majors

2011-10-12T20:45:56Z

Gelatin: /* Majors */

The '''worst college majors''' are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-[[liberal]] view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them.

We encourage college students and employers to improve this list over time.

==Majors==
# Women's studies,<ref>"Women’s studies ... is disappearing from British universities. ... Students have begun to realise, too, that women’s studies is useless for getting you a job. It’s no coincidence that the subject’s collapse coincided with the introduction of tuition fees. The moment you start paying for something is the moment you consider whether it’s really worthwhile." [http://www.theinsider.com/news/639292_The_End_Of_Women_s_Studies_And_Other_Useless_Qualifications]</ref><ref>http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000225.html</ref><ref>http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/why-is-gender-studies-dominated-by-one-gender-1.289830</ref> recently renamed "gender studies" at some schools
# [[Atheism|Secularism]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/us/08secular.html</ref>
#[[Homosexuality|LGBT]] studies<ref>http://www.yale.edu/lgbts/</ref><ref>http://www.lgbts.umd.edu/</ref>
# Film<ref name="georgetown" />
# General Religious studies programs and Theology<ref name=georgetown>[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf What's It Worth?] Georgetown University, July 2011</ref><ref name="yahoolist" />. Ministers, however, have a low 1.2% unemployment rate in the [[United States]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703648304575212001278867126.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal Joblessness Hits the Pulpit - Wall Street Journal]</ref>
# English Literature/Literary Criticism
# Music Therapy<ref name="georgetown" />
# Dance<ref name="georgetown" />
# Interior Design<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Art History<ref name=yahoolist>[http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/110196/20-worst-paying-college-degrees-in-2010 20 Worst-Paying College Degrees in 2010] Yahoo! Finance, 08/12/2010</ref>
# Comic Book Art
# Surfing Studies
# Golf Management – University of Birmingham / Florida Gulf Coast University
# Communications
# [[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]
# Architecture <ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=5</ref>
# Degrees leading to careers in investment banking and corporate work<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=3</ref>
# Journalism <ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=4</ref>
# Psychology<ref name="georgetown" />
# Fashion Design
# Theater<ref name="georgetown" />
# Horticulture<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Human Resources<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Photography<ref name="georgetown" />
# Video game design<ref>One observer noted that not even the video game industry typically hires people who majored in video game design.</ref>
# Forestry/Range Management/Wildlife Management
# Environmental Studies
# Outdoor Recreation
# Fine Art<ref>http://www.artcareer.net/faqs/job-market-outlook-for-artists-and-designers/</ref><ref name="yahoolist" />
# Astronomy
# Horticulture
# Anthropology
# Sociology
# History of Art
# History of Music

==Courses==
# Football Culture
# Queer Musicology – UCLA
# The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University <ref>CBS News: ''Harry Potter Goes To College: Professor Uses Boy Wizard To Explores Links Between Magic, Science'', by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, Sept. 26, 2003 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/national/main584456.shtml] ''...Frostburg State President Catherine R. Gira said she isn't worried that some may view a Harry Potter class as trivial. "Irrespective of the specific title of the course, the 'magic' in the fiction is being analyzed by applying concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. This honors course creatively packages scientific principles in a contemporary way that will interest today's students," Gira said.''</ref>
# Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
# Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
# Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvlL_lDk4ko Jason Mattera At CPAC, YouTube]</ref>
# Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington <ref> [http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180 Georgetown University Course Listing]</ref>
# Emotional Literacy<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076368/Schools-councils-waste-300-000-useless-emotional-literacy-course-faraway-island-sun.html</ref>
# Media Genres, the study of zombies - University of Baltimore <ref>[http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/university-of-baltimore-pop-culture-class-focuses-on-zombies/19625044?test=latestnews College Course Preps Pupils for Zombie Apocalypse, AOL News, September 9, 2010]</ref>
# The Science of Superheroes - UC Irvine <ref>[http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/11/14/the-top-8-california-schools-that-are-like-totally-wasting-your-money/ The Top 8 California Schools that Are, Like, Totally Wasting Your Money, NewsRealBlog, November 14, 2010]</ref>
# Field Equipment Operation (tractor driving) - UC Davis
# Hip Hop: The Politics of Culture - UC San Diego
# History of Surfing - UC Santa Barbara
# Labor Studies - UM Saint Louis & UM Kansas City <ref>[http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/04/25/video-college-course-teaches-violent-union-tactics/ Video: College Course Teaches Violent Union Tactics, The Hot Joints, April 25, 2011]</ref>
# Arguing with Judge Judy - UC Berkeley
# Self-Esteem - Cal State Fresno
# Gaga for Lady Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity- University of Virginia-Charlottesville<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/lady-gaga-college-class_n_712540.html</ref>
# Pilot Brewery (brewmaster) - UC Davis
# Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence - UC Berkeley
# Ecology of Renewable Natural Resources - Texas Tech University <ref>[http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/courses/NRM.php Texas Tech University Course Listing]</ref>

== Sources ==

* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf What's It Worth? The Economic Value of College Majors] - Comprehensive report at [[Georgetown University]] website
* [http://learnfinancialplanning.com/best-worst-college-majors-degree/ Best and Worst College Majors]
* [http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes]
[[Category:college]]
[[Category:education]]

== References ==

<references/>

Worst College Majors

2011-10-12T20:44:41Z

Gelatin: /* Majors */ Geology does not rightfully belong on here, geology is a high paying major from natural gas, shale and oil companies as well as structural engineering needs.

The '''worst college majors''' are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-[[liberal]] view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them.

We encourage college students and employers to improve this list over time.

==Majors==
# Women's studies,<ref>"Women’s studies ... is disappearing from British universities. ... Students have begun to realise, too, that women’s studies is useless for getting you a job. It’s no coincidence that the subject’s collapse coincided with the introduction of tuition fees. The moment you start paying for something is the moment you consider whether it’s really worthwhile." [http://www.theinsider.com/news/639292_The_End_Of_Women_s_Studies_And_Other_Useless_Qualifications]</ref><ref>http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000225.html</ref><ref>http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/why-is-gender-studies-dominated-by-one-gender-1.289830</ref> recently renamed "gender studies" at some schools
# [[Atheism|Secularism]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/us/08secular.html</ref>
#[[Homosexuality|LGBT]] studies<ref>http://www.yale.edu/lgbts/</ref><ref>http://www.lgbts.umd.edu/</ref>
# Film<ref name="georgetown" />
# General Religious studies programs and Theology<ref name=georgetown>[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf What's It Worth?] Georgetown University, July 2011</ref><ref name="yahoolist" />. Ministers, however, have a low 1.2% unemployment rate in the [[United States]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703648304575212001278867126.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal Joblessness Hits the Pulpit - Wall Street Journal]</ref>
# English Literature/Literary Criticism
# Music Therapy<ref name="georgetown" />
# Dance<ref name="georgetown" />
# Interior Design<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Art History<ref name=yahoolist>[http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/110196/20-worst-paying-college-degrees-in-2010 20 Worst-Paying College Degrees in 2010] Yahoo! Finance, 08/12/2010</ref>
# Comic Book Art
# Surfing Studies
# Golf Management – University of Birmingham / Florida Gulf Coast University
# Communications
# [[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]
# Architecture <ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=5</ref>
# Degrees leading to careers in investment banking and corporate work<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=3</ref>
# Journalism <ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=4</ref>
# Psychology<ref name="georgetown" />
# Fashion Design
# Theater<ref name="georgetown" />
# Horticulture<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Human Resources<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Photography<ref name="georgetown" />
# Video game design<ref>One observer noted that not even the video game industry typically hires people who majored in video game design.</ref>
# Forestry/Range Management/Wildlife Management
# Environmental Studies
# Outdoor Recreation
# Fine Art<ref>http://www.artcareer.net/faqs/job-market-outlook-for-artists-and-designers/</ref><ref name="yahoolist" />
# Astronomy
# Horticulture
# Anthropology
# Sociology

==Courses==
# Football Culture
# Queer Musicology – UCLA
# The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University <ref>CBS News: ''Harry Potter Goes To College: Professor Uses Boy Wizard To Explores Links Between Magic, Science'', by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, Sept. 26, 2003 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/national/main584456.shtml] ''...Frostburg State President Catherine R. Gira said she isn't worried that some may view a Harry Potter class as trivial. "Irrespective of the specific title of the course, the 'magic' in the fiction is being analyzed by applying concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. This honors course creatively packages scientific principles in a contemporary way that will interest today's students," Gira said.''</ref>
# Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
# Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
# Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvlL_lDk4ko Jason Mattera At CPAC, YouTube]</ref>
# Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington <ref> [http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180 Georgetown University Course Listing]</ref>
# Emotional Literacy<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076368/Schools-councils-waste-300-000-useless-emotional-literacy-course-faraway-island-sun.html</ref>
# Media Genres, the study of zombies - University of Baltimore <ref>[http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/university-of-baltimore-pop-culture-class-focuses-on-zombies/19625044?test=latestnews College Course Preps Pupils for Zombie Apocalypse, AOL News, September 9, 2010]</ref>
# The Science of Superheroes - UC Irvine <ref>[http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/11/14/the-top-8-california-schools-that-are-like-totally-wasting-your-money/ The Top 8 California Schools that Are, Like, Totally Wasting Your Money, NewsRealBlog, November 14, 2010]</ref>
# Field Equipment Operation (tractor driving) - UC Davis
# Hip Hop: The Politics of Culture - UC San Diego
# History of Surfing - UC Santa Barbara
# Labor Studies - UM Saint Louis & UM Kansas City <ref>[http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/04/25/video-college-course-teaches-violent-union-tactics/ Video: College Course Teaches Violent Union Tactics, The Hot Joints, April 25, 2011]</ref>
# Arguing with Judge Judy - UC Berkeley
# Self-Esteem - Cal State Fresno
# Gaga for Lady Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity- University of Virginia-Charlottesville<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/lady-gaga-college-class_n_712540.html</ref>
# Pilot Brewery (brewmaster) - UC Davis
# Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence - UC Berkeley
# Ecology of Renewable Natural Resources - Texas Tech University <ref>[http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/courses/NRM.php Texas Tech University Course Listing]</ref>

== Sources ==

* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf What's It Worth? The Economic Value of College Majors] - Comprehensive report at [[Georgetown University]] website
* [http://learnfinancialplanning.com/best-worst-college-majors-degree/ Best and Worst College Majors]
* [http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes]
[[Category:college]]
[[Category:education]]

== References ==

<references/>

Open Question: Why Do evolutionists say 'science is all about making changes' yet don't even consider Biblical Creation as an alternative?

2011-10-12T02:41:34Z

Gelatin: Created page with "Why is it that evolutionists always tout the line 'science is a self correcting process' yet just downright deny any invocation of God?"

Why is it that evolutionists always tout the line 'science is a self correcting process' yet just downright deny any invocation of God?