Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

USS Iowa (BB-61)

2012-02-08T16:11:08Z

GeorgeLi: /* Turret explosion */

{{Ship
| name=USS ''Iowa'' (BB 61)
| image=USSIowaBB61.jpg
| caption=
| flag-raw=[[File:50 star flag.png|40px]] [[Image:50 star jack.png|30px]]
| flag-caption=
| owner=United States Navy
| built=New York Naval Shipyard Brooklyn, New York
| authorized=12 June 1940
| keellaid=27 June 1940
| launched=27 August 1942
| commissioned=22 February 1943
| decommissioned=26 October 1990
| status=Reserve fleet; mothballed Suisan Bay, California
| type=Battleship ''Iowa''-class
| displ=45,000 tons
| length=887 feet 3 inches
| beam=108 feet 2 inches
| draft=28 ft 11 in
| speed=33 knots
| test=
| armament=Nine 16"/50 main guns twenty 5"/38 secondary guns 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles four Phalanx close-in weapons systems
| crew=1,921 officers and men
| troops=
| pass=
|}
}}
'''USS ''Iowa''''' was the lead ship of a class of [[battleship]] that were the last ships of this type built. Serving in World War II and the Korean Conflict, USS ''Iowa'' is also remembered for the tragic turret explosion which killed a large number of sailors, and caused investigators - as well as the United States Navy - to place blame for the accident on an innocent man.

==World War II history==
The third ship named ''Iowa'' was laid down at New York Navy Yard, 27 June 1940, launched 27 August 1942, and sponsored by Mrs. Henry A. Wallace, wife of Vice President Wallace. She was commissioned 22 February 1943, and placed under the command of Captain John L. McCrea. On 24 February, Iowa put to sea for shakedown cruise in [[Chesapeake Bay]] and along the [[Atlantic]] coast. She got underway, 27 August for Argentia, [[Newfoundland]] to neutralize the threat of German battleship ''Tirpitz'' which was reportedly operating In Norwegian waters.

In the fall, ''Iowa'' carried President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] to Casablanca, French [[Morocco]], on the first leg of his journey to the [[Teheran Conference]] in November, returning him afterwards. As flagship of Battleship Division 7, ''Iowa'' departed the United States 2 January 1944 for the Pacific Theatre and her combat debut in the campaign for the Marshalls. From 29 January to 3 February, she supported carrier air strikes made by Rear Admiral Frederick C. Sherman's task group against Kwajalein and Eniwetok Atolls in the [[Marshall Islands]]. Her next assignment was to support air strikes against the Japanese Naval base at Truk, Caroline Islands. ''Iowa'', in company with other ships was detached from the support group 16 February 1944 to conduct an anti-shipping sweep around Truk to destroy enemy naval vessels escaping to the north. On 21 February, she was underway with Fast Carrier Task Force 58 while it conducted the first strikes against Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and [[Guam]] in the Marianas.

On 18 March, ''Iowa'' joined in the bombardment of Mili Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Although struck by two Japanese 4.7" projectiles during the action, ''Iowa'' suffered negligible damage. She then rejoined Task Force 58 on 30 March, and supported air strikes which continued for several days against the [[Palau Islands]] and Woleai of the Carolines.

From 22 to 28 April 1944, ''Iowa'' supported air raids on Hollandia, Aitape, and Wake Islands to support Army forces on Aitape, Tanahmerah Bay, and Humboldt Bay in [[New Guinea]]. She then joined the task force's second strike on [[Truk]], 29-30 April, and bombarded Japanese facilities on Ponape in the Carolines, 1 May.

In the opening phases of the Marianas campaign, ''Iowa'' protected the flattops during air strikes on the islands of [[Saipan]], [[Tinian]], Guam, Rota, and Pagan on 12 June. She was then detached to bombard enemy installations on Saipan and Tinian on 13-14 June. On 19 June, in an engagement known as the [[Battle of the Philippine Sea]], ''Iowa'', as part of the battle line of Fast Carrier Task Force 58, helped repel four massive air raids launched by the Japanese Middle Fleet. This resulted in the almost complete destruction of Japanese carrier-based aircraft. ''Iowa'' then joined in the pursuit of the fleeing enemy fleet, shooting down one torpedo plane and assisting in splashing another.

Throughout the following July, ''Iowa'' remained off the Marianas supporting air strikes on the Palaus and landings on Guam. After a month's rest, ''Iowa'' sortied from Eniwetok as part of the 3d Fleet, and helped support the landings on Peleliu on 17 September. She then protected the carriers during air strikes against the Central [[Philippines]] to neutralize enemy air power for the long awaited invasion of the Philippines. On 10 October ''Iowa'' arrived off [[Okinawa]] for a series of air strikes on the Ryukyus and Formosa. She then supported air strikes against Luzon on 18 October and continued this vital duty during [[Douglas MacArthur|General MacArthur's]] landing at Leyte on 20 October.

In a last ditch attempt to halt the United States campaign to recapture the Philippines, the Japanese Navy struck back with a three-pronged attack aimed at the destruction of American amphibious forces in Leyte Gulf. ''Iowa'' accompanied TF-38 during attacks against the Japanese Central Force as it steamed through the Sibuyan Sea toward San Bernardino Strait. The reported results of these attacks and the apparent retreat of the Japanese Central Force led [[William F. Halsey, Jr.|Admiral Halsey]] to believe that this force had been ruined as an effective fighting group. ''Iowa'', with Task Force 38, then steamed after the Japanese Northern Force off Cape Engano, Luzon.

On 25 October 1944, when the ships of the Northern Force were almost within range of ''Iowa's'' guns, word arrived that the Japanese Central Force was attacking a group of American escort carriers off Samar. This threat to the American beachheads forced her to reverse course and steam to support the vulnerable "baby carriers." However, the valiant fight put up by the escort carriers and their screen had already caused the Japanese to retire and ''Iowa'' was denied a surface action. Following the [[Battle for Leyte Gulf]], Iowa remained in the waters off the Philippines screening carriers during strikes against Luzon and Formosa. She sailed for the West Coast late in December 1944.

''Iowa'' arrived [[San Francisco]] on 15 January 1945 for overhaul. She sailed 19 March 1945 for Okinawa, arriving 15 April 1945. Commencing 24 April 1945, ''Iowa'' supported carrier operations which assured American troops vital air superiority during their struggle for that bitterly contested island. She then supported air strikes off southern Kyushu from 25 May to 13 June 1945, and then participated in strikes on the Japanese homeland 14-15 July, bombarding Muroran, Hokkaido, destroying steel mills and other targets. The city of Hitachi on Honshu was given the same treatment on the night of 17-18 July 1945. ''Iowa'' continued to support fast carrier strikes until the cessation of hostilities, 13 August 1945.

''Iowa'' entered Tokyo Bay with the occupation forces, 29 August 1945. After serving as Admiral Halsey's flagship for the surrender ceremony on 2 September 1945, ''Iowa'' departed Tokyo Bay 20 September 1945 for the United States.

Arriving Seattle, Washington on 15 October 1945, ''Iowa'' stayed for a few months before returning to Japanese waters in January 1946 and becoming the flagship of the 5th Fleet. She continued this role until she sailed for the United States 25 March 1946. From that time on, until September 1948, ''Iowa'' operated from West Coast ports, on Naval Reserve and at sea training and drills and maneuvers with the Fleet. ''Iowa'' decommissioned 24 March 1949.

==1950's==
After Communist aggression in Korea necessitated an expansion of the active fleet, ''Iowa'' was recommissioned 25 August 1951 and operated off the West Coast until March 1952, when she sailed for the Far East. On 1 April 1952, ''Iowa'' became the flagship of 7th fleet commander Vice Admiral Robert T. Briscoe, and departed Yokosuka, Japan, to support [[United Nations]] forces in Korea. From 8 April to 16 October 1952, ''Iowa'' was involved in combat operations off the east eoast of Korea. Her primary mission was to aid ground troops by bombarding enemy targets at Songjin, Hunguam, and Kojo, in North Korea. During this time Admiral Briscoe was relieved by Vice Admiral J. J. Clark, who continued to use ''Iowa'' as his flagship until 17 October 1952. ''Iowa'' departed Yokosuka, Japan on 19 October 1952 for overhaul at Norfolk and training operations in the [[Caribbean Sea]].

''Iowa'' embarked midshipmen for at sea training to Northern Europe, July 1953, and immediately after took part in Operation Mariner, a major NATO exercise, serving as flagship of 2nd Fleet commander Vice Admiral E. T. Woolfidge. Upon completion of this exercise, until the fall of 1954, Iowa operated in the Virginia Capes area. In September 1954, she became the flagship of Rear Admiral R. E. Libby, Commander, Battleship-Cruiser Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.

From January to April 1955, ''Iowa'' made an extended cruise to the Mediterranean as the first battleship regularly assigned to Commander, 6th Fleet. ''Iowa'' departed on a midshipman training cruise 1 June 1955 and upon her return, she entered Norfolk for a four-month overhaul. Following refit, ''Iowa'' continued intermittent training cruises and operational exercises, until 4 January 1957 when she departed Norfolk for duty with the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. Upon completion of this deployment, ''Iowa'' embarked midshipmen for a South American training cruise and joined in the International Naval Review off Hampton Roads, Va., 13 June 1957.

On 3 September 1957, ''Iowa'' sailed for Scotland for NATO Operation Strikeback . She returned to Norfolk, 28 September 1957 and departed Hampton Roads for the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 22 October 1957. She decommissioned a second time on 24 February 1958.

==1980's==
After two and a half decades in mothballs, ''Iowa'' was modernized under President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s the 1981 defense buildup, which included $1.7 billion dollars in upgrades for her and her three sister ships. Towed from Philadelphia to Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi, she spent the next three years receiving the latest weapons technology - including Tomahawk cruise and Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and the Phalanx close-in weapons system; some of the upgrades necessitated the removal of four 5-inch gun mounts, reducing her compliment of these guns to twelve. ''Iowa'' was recommissioned 28 April 1984, becoming, along with her sisters, an integral part of surface action groups assigned for a tactical mission. She went to European waters in 1985, 1986 and 1987 through 1988, with the latter cruise continuing into the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.

==Turret explosion==
On 19 April 1989 while conducting gunnery excersizes in the Atlantic, an explosion of undetermined cause ripped through her number two sixteen-inch gun turret killing 47 crewmen. Within weeks blame for the incident centered on Gunners Mate 2nd-Class Clayton Hartwig, the gun captain of Turret Two's center gun, who the Navy stated was suicidal and depressed following the breakup of an alleged homosexual affair with another sailor [http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/27/us/their-hearts-said-navy-erred-about-iowa-blast.html]. Despite vehement denials from the Hartwig family and many others, the Navy stuck by its "official" version of the explosion until Congress forced the Navy to conduct tests on the 16-inch powder bags used in the firing of ''Iowa's'' big guns. At Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, Virginia, drop tests were done on several powder bags from a height of fifteen feet, simulating the approximate speed of what was suspected by critics of the Naval investigation to be the prime cause of the explosion: an over-ram into the gun's breech as the powder was mechanically inserted. The resulting test explosions caused the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Frank B. Kelso III, to publicly apologize to the Hartwig family and state there was no proof that Hartwig caused the explosion.

Turret Two remained unrepaired when she decommissioned in Norfolk, Va., for the last time 26 October 1990.

''Iowa'', as part of the Reserve Fleet, was berthed at the Naval Education and Training Center in Newport, R.I., from 24 September 1998 to 8 March 2001 when she began her journey under tow to [[San Francisco]]. She arrived at Suisan Bay, San Francisco, on 21 April 2001 and is part of the Reserve Fleet there.

''Iowa'' earned nine battle stars for World War II service and two for Korean service.

==21st Century==

After 21 years in the reserve fleet, USS ''Iowa'' is currently moored at Richmond, [[California]], where she is being refitted as a museum ship. When the refit is complete she will move to [[Los Angeles]] as the centerpiece of the Pacific Battleship Center.

----
''Article incorporates text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, a work in the public domain''

==See also==
*[[USS Johnston (DD-557)]]

==References==
*Bonner, Carolyn. ''USS Iowa At War.'' Osceola, Wisconsin: Zenith Press (2007)

[[Category:Battleships]][[Category:United States Navy]]

Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)

2012-02-08T16:09:00Z

GeorgeLi: Created page with "==Photos== I have some photos I took a couple of weeks ago on board USS ''Iowa'' while she's being refitted at Richmond. Is there any chance someone could help me upload them? T..."

==Photos==

I have some photos I took a couple of weeks ago on board USS ''Iowa'' while she's being refitted at Richmond. Is there any chance someone could help me upload them? Thanks. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T16:07:47Z

GeorgeLi: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::But the queen isn't anything to do with the "atheist religion," is she? She's head of the Anglican Church. Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

Federal System

2012-02-08T16:05:42Z

GeorgeLi:

The '''federal system''' is a system of government by which the [[power]] is divided among the national [[government]] and other government units (such as [[state]]s.) Examples of federal systems include the [[United States]] (with 50 states) and [[Germany]] (with 16 ''Bündesländer.)

[[Category: Government]]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T16:03:42Z

GeorgeLi: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T16:02:48Z

GeorgeLi: /* Atheists and surprises */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T16:02:03Z

GeorgeLi: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T16:00:44Z

GeorgeLi: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T15:52:03Z

GeorgeLi: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T14:35:22Z

GeorgeLi: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

User talk:GeorgeLi

2012-02-07T23:08:23Z

GeorgeLi: /* United Kingdom */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:51, 2 February 2012 (EST)}}

== United Kingdom ==

I sympathise with your position, I really do, but the fact remains that the underdogs claim is sufficiently referenced to the Conservapedia standard for referencing. Unfortunately, the onus is on you to show if there are any exceptions to the accepted principle. Good luck. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:58, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:The Scotland team are underdogs. They never get beyond the World Cup first round and more often than not they don't even qualify. Nevertheless British fans support them. Their travel club for away games is filled to capacity and is not accepting new members. All this is (or can be) referenced. The original claim is not referenced at all. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 18:03, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::You make an interesting point. I suggest you take it up on the relevant page [[Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?]]. It may be that the principle has need of some fine-tuning. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::The principle is in need of some deleting and I think you know that as well as I do. Much as I admire Mr Schlafly I think he's wrong about this. The Brits are famous for loving underdogs. Half their politicians are constantly bitching about how they love underdogs more than people who succeed. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 18:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

United Kingdom

2012-02-07T23:04:34Z

GeorgeLi: Undo revision 959554 by DamianJohnThe locals (who are British) support their own team EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE UNDERDOG, which is exactly the point.

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|map2 =UK location.png
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =David Cameron
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =62,698,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its [[head of state]] is [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]].

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. British values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], 1600-1960, and British contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] Church ("Church of England"), a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
[[File:London Thames Sunset panorama 2008.jpg|thumb|left|London - Thames panorama.]]
The official name of the nation (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.<ref> From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. </ref> The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents. The short version for historical topics is either "Britain" or "Great Britain." The short version for recent events (since the 1970s) is "United Kingdom" or "UK" The adjective is always '''"British"'''.

Britain was part of the [[British Empire]], which has become the "British Commonwealth", and is mostly a discussion club --Britain has a few scattered minor possessions but gave up its last important colony--[[Hong Kong]]--in 1997.
[[File:Westminster in the evening.jpg|thumb|280px|Westminster in the evening.]]
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is now sometimes considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member countries and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in remote Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland.

MacColl (2008) explores the use of the term 'Britain' in English, French, and Latin texts from the 12th century to the 16th. The term was flexible, used in a variety of ways (geographically, politically, and ethnically), and not always indicative of any specific meaning. The English at first tended to conflate 'Britain' with England or the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, though the term 'Greater Britain' was applied starting in the 14th century to refer to the entire island. The Scottish, beginning in the 15th century, used the term in the modern sense - as reflective of the entire island of Great Britain and the 'polity' of England, Wales, and Scotland. This latter usage paved the way for the relatively smooth ideological transition after the 1707 Acts of Union.<ref> Alan MacColl, "The Meaning of 'Britain' in Medieval and Early Modern England." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(2): 248-269</ref>

===Anthem===
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. Should a male heir accede to the throne, the anthem will become "God Save the King".<ref> This same melody is also sung by American schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".</ref>

The constituent nations have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''Flower of Scotland''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''Land of Hope and Glory'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is more commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|340px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe.

A net total of 408,000 people were added to the UK population in 2008, the largest numerical increase since 1972. This was partly due to the highest fertility rate in more than three decades. More than half of the increase in births last year was due to non-UK born mothers.

There is also an ever-increasing aging population with the number of people over 85 now at a record 1.3 million, the equivalent of one in every 50 people.

===Education===
[[File:Royal College of Music 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Royal College of Music.]]
The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. "Public" schools are elite private prep schools, such as [[Eton]] and [[Rugby School|Rugby]], attended by youth whose families can afford to pay high tuition rates.

About thirty six percent of British students go on to post-secondary education.

Higher education has been a speciality for over 500 years at Oxbridge ([[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]), with new "red brick" universities added in the 19th century and many others in the late 20th century. Universities contribute £33 billion a year to the economy. Britain has a strong attraction for international students, with 342,000 attending in 2007 (compared to 672,000 in the U.S. and 183,000 in Australia). They spend £1.5 billion in tuition in Britain annually, plus another £0.4 billion off campus.

===Demographics===
[[File:Youth UK.JPG|thumb|British youth.]]
A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Ethnic tensions===

Britain is home to 2.4 million Muslims from numerous ethnicities. This population is growing 10 times faster than the national average. Regarded as one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, Britain struggles with questions of integration, particularly the social exclusion of its Muslims, as well as the psychological aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings on London’s public transport system carried out by young Britons of Pakistani descent, which left 52 people dead and over 700 injured.

[[File:Children.jpg|390px|center|Seventh-day Adventists.]]

===Religion===
[[File:Canterbury Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Canterbury Cathedral (photographed during 1890-1900).]]
Religious faith, according to a 2011 survey, has declined sharply in Britain over the last two decades. Now only 42% of people describe themselves as Christian, as opposed to 66% in 1990. Most of the decline is due to a drift away from the Church of England, it is claimed, with only 20% claiming allegiance, down from 40%.

In 2003 the Office of National Statistics estimated 29% of the population identified with Anglicanism, 10% with the Catholic Church, and 14% with other Protestant churches. A 2007 survey reported that the number of Catholics (mostly Irish) attending Sunday services has overtaken the number of Anglicans doing so. A September 2006 English Church Census reported that Methodists were decreasing as a percentage of the population, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal churches, many churches from Africa, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, almost entirely immigrants, were increasing.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108478.htm U.S. State Department Report, 2008]</ref>

Individuals with no religious belief comprised 21% of the population in 2009. Muslims comprise 3% of the population. The Muslim community is predominantly South Asian in origin, but other groups from the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Levant are represented. In addition, there is a growing number of indigenous converts. Although estimates vary, the Government places the number of mosques in the whole country at one thousand. Groups comprising 1% or less of the population include Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Individuals from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds are concentrated in London and other large urban areas, primarily in England.

Attendance at religious services was significantly different from the number of adherents. According to a report released on May 8, 2008, by Religious Trends, only 4 million Christians attend services on a regular basis (defined as at least once a month) in the country. These figures do not include Northern Ireland, where higher%ages reportedly attend both Catholic (more than 60%) and Protestant (more than 35%) services. The Religious Trends report stated that more than 50% of Muslims regularly worship at mosques. Figures for Jews and other religious groups were unavailable.

Religious affiliation was not evenly distributed among ethnicities. According to the 2001 census, approximately 70% of the white population described themselves as Christians. Nearly 75% of black Caribbean respondents stated that they were Christians, as did 70% of black Africans. Meanwhile, 45% of Indians were Hindus and 29% were Sikhs. Approximately 92% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were Muslims.

In Northern Ireland, where divisions between nationalists and unionists evolved largely along religious lines, the 2001 census showed that 53.1% were Protestants and 43.8% were Catholics. Many Catholics and Protestants continued to live in segregated communities in Northern Ireland, although many middle class neighborhoods were mixed communities. The policy of the Government remained one of promotion of religious tolerance.

There are two established (or state) churches--The [[Church of England]] (Anglican) and the [[Church of Scotland]] (Presbyterian). The Act of Settlement, enacted in 1688, states that no Catholic, or person married to a Catholic, may ascend the throne.
====Religion in schools====
The Government provides financial support—up to 90% of the total capital costs of the buildings and 100% of running costs, including teachers' salaries - to sectarian educational institutions that are commonly referred to as "faith schools".
[[File:Matthew Boulton College.jpg|thumb|Matthew Boulton College.]]
The Government also helps fund the repair and maintenance of all listed places of worship for religious groups nationwide and contributes to the budget of the Church Conservation Trust, which preserves "redundant" Church of England buildings of architectural or historic significance.

The Government has not classified the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and therefore has not granted the organization recognition for charitable status.

More than 30% of state schools had a religious character. Nearly all of the 6,949 "faith schools" are associated with Christian denominations, although there are 31 Jewish, 7 Islamic, and 2 Sikh schools. An additional two Jewish, three Islamic, and two Sikh schools have also been tentatively approved by the Government to open. In addition, several hundred independent schools of a religious nature receive no state support but must meet government quality standards. Controversy arose in 2006 over 100 Islamic schools when an Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) evaluation of these schools showed many were "little more than places where the Koran was recited." The schools were given time to correct their deficiencies. A review is due in 2010. Some Christian faith schools also faced controversy. Some were accused of not following the national curriculum in science, teaching creationism instead. During the reporting period, a further controversy erupted when it was learned that some faith schools were not following an "open" admission policy as required by law, denying admission to both special needs children and those outside the faith of the school administrators. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have an agreement to voluntarily accept up to 25% of places for pupils from another religious group or no religious group.

Almost all schools in Northern Ireland receive state support. More than 90% of students attended schools that were either predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Integrated schools served approximately 5% of school-age children whose families voluntarily chose this option, often after overcoming significant obstacles to provide the resources to start a new school and demonstrate its sustainability for 3 years before government funding begins. Demand for places in integrated schools outweighed the limited number of places available. The May 8, 2007, devolution, or granting of power, authorized the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on academic selection. Now there are more than 50 integrated schools, and the new Government permits existing schools to petition to change from sectarian to integrated. More petition for that status than are granted it. Some have accused the Government of a go-slow approach to avoid sectarian animus.

The law requires religious education for all children, ages 3 to 19, in publicly maintained schools. In England and Wales it forms part of the core curriculum in accordance with the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. However, the shape and content of religious instruction throughout the country is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabuses must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils. Schools with a religious designation follow a syllabus drawn up by the school governors according to the trust deed of the school. All parents have the legal right to request that their children not participate in religious education, but the school must approve this request.

Daily collective prayer or worship of "a wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" is practiced in schools in England and Wales, a requirement that may be waived for students who obtain permission of the school authorities. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 permits sixth form students (generally 16-19-year-olds) to withdraw themselves from worship without their parents' permission or action. This new law does not exempt sixth form students from religious education classes. Non-Christian worship is permitted with approval of the authorities. Teachers have the right not to participate in collective worship, without prejudice, unless they work for a faith school.

After several controversial court decisions prohibiting full-face veils in school (but not head scarves) and the wearing of a Christian chastity ring, the Department of Education provided guidance that advises schools to "… act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation. Some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was inappropriate for the Government to provide guidance that regulated Muslim communities in matters concerning the expression of their religious beliefs. But it is also legally possible under the act, according to the guidance, to have a school uniform policy that "restricts the freedom of pupils to manifest their religion" on the grounds of health and safety and the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Government's guidance is meant to remind "head teachers" to act with a degree of sensitivity when considering decisions that will impact the cultural complexion of their communities.

====Census====

According to the 2001 Census the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
[[File:Wembley Stadium.jpg|thumb|230px|Wembley Stadium.]]
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]], [[baseball]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, rugby union, and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League. This league is sponsored by Barclays Bank, so has the official name "Barclays Premier League". Many of the Premier League's teams are well known outside the United Kingdom, especially the "big four" (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) and maintain followings around the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

United Kingdom supporters, unlike those of the United States, will virtually never support any team that is an underdog (with the exceptions of West Ham United, Partick Thistle, Bromley, Manchester City, St Mirren, Norwich, Kilmarnock, Blackburn Rovers and the Scottish national team.<ref>http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=133</ref>) It is surmised that this is due to the high levels of atheism. <ref>See the evidence provided at [[Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?]]</ref>

The UK is also renowned for its music, and is the home of bands like [[The Beatles]] and [[Radiohead]], as well as festivals such as [[Creamfields]]

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''
[[File:Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.JPG|thumb|200px|Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.]]
Nationalist movements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights". Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and can remain in office for so long as he or she has the support of a majority in that body.

==Parliament==
[[File:Westminster palace Charles Barry.jpg|left|380px]]
Parliament was authorized in the [[Magna Carta]] (1215), and first summoned by King Edward I in 1296, the oldest governing body in the world. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. Elections are called by the prime minister, but the maximum length of a parliament is usually 5 years (except in wartime). The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. Normally the government--the prime minister and cabinet--have full control of the House. If they lose control and new general election is held. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a "First past the post" system and there is no proportional representation. The upshot is that a third party with under 25% of the vote typically obtains very few seats.

==Constituent countries==
[[File:Scottish Eilean Donan castle.jpg|thumb|300px|Scottish Eilean Donan castle.]]
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement", and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:674uyyhju.jpg|thumb|David Cameron]]
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon [[David Cameron]] MP'''
*Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the council '''- Rt Hon [[Nick Clegg]] MP'''<ref name="LibDem">Member of the [[Liberal Democrats]]</ref>
*First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon [[William Hague]] MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon [[George Osborne]] MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Kenneth Clark QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Theresa May MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade '''- Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP'''
*Secretary of State for Education'''- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Rt Hon Michael Moore MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC'''
*Minister without Portfolio '''- Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General'''- Rt Hon Francis Maude MP'''
*Minister of State in the Cabinet Office'''- Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP'''
*Minister for Universities and Science '''- David Willetts MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal '''- Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP'''
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
[[David Cameron]] became Prime Minister on May 11, 2010, after [[Gordon Brown]] resigned. Cameron leads a [[Conservative Party|Con]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Lib Dem]] coalition after failing to achieve a majority in the the 2010 general election

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|right|240px]]
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.
[[File:Royal Naval college UK.jpg|thumb|center|380px|Royal Naval College.]]
===Iraq===
The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner under the designation Operation TELIC. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

<blockquote>
Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests. The British Government saw Iraqi oil as "vital" to the UK's long-term energy security, and the effective privatisation of its oil industry was central to the post-invasion plan for the country, according to previously unseen Whitehall documents. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html] ''The Independent.''
</blockquote>

The Iraq Inquiry is conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict; the inquiry is concerned over Mr. Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chilcot-to-grill-blair-on-how-he-misled-iraq-war-inquiry-2185725.html] The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot (1939) was Staff Counsellor to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (1999-2004) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (2002-06).

===Afghanistan===
Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The British force in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] is at 9,000 in late 2009 and will rise by an extra 500 troops in 2010. British forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, Britain has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S.
===Israel===
Britain has shown a greater willingness than the United States to criticize the Israelis over settlements and what some call the disproportionate responses to provocations from Gaza and southern Lebanon. (Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman is among the most vocal.) Like his predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, former Foreign Secretary Milliband has been unequivocal: "Settlements are illegal under international law," he told Parliament in 2008; "They are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution." His successor William Hague, on 20 March 2011, "expressed our serious concern over the recent announcement of 400 new housing units in the West Bank. Continued settlements run contrary to peace.” A BBC poll in March 2011 found that 14% of British subjects have a generally positive opinion of Israel while 66% have a generally negative opinion.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the countries' alliances during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
[[File:London.jpg|thumb|left|280px|London's financial center.]]
Britain has been hard hit by the [[Recession of 2008]], with its major banks taken over or subsidized by the government. Real gross domestic product declined by 4.6% in 2009, and is expected to rise by 0.6% before 2010 and probably will continue to increase by 1% in 2011.

Britain has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The previous Labour government continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.
[[File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop 2009.jpg|thumb|440px|Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, 2009.]]
London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

Britain is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2009 est.): -4.6%
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK has never joined the [[Euro]] zone.

==History==
[[File:Stonehenge.jpg|thumb|left|Stonehenge.]]
The Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by [[Sir Francis Grant]].]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.

====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
[[File:Bradford Industrial Museum.jpg|thumb|left|Bradford Industrial Museum.]]
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

 

====End of Empire====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The UK joined world war I because of the invasion of [[Belgium]], and subsequently began [[World War II]] after the invasion of [[Poland]]. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominions"; beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s.

== United Kingdom and moral decline ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] in Britain.]]
''See also:'' [[Britain and morality]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

In 2011 and in recent years, there have been number of reports on the decline of morality in [[Britain]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'' by Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning? by Creation Ministries International'']
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695318/UK-riots-David-Cameron-promises-to-restore-sense-of-morality-as-police-get-new-powers.html UK riots: David Cameron promises to restore 'sense of morality' as police get new powers]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=171651 British morality, Jerusalem Post, By JERUSALEM POST, 03/24/2010]
*[http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000237.php The Strange Death of Moral Britain by Christie Davies]
*[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/carl-mortished/uk-welfare-plan-saves-money-but-morally-bankrupt/article1790653/ U.K. welfare plan: Saves money, but morally bankrupt, Globe and Mail,Nov. 09, 2010 by Carl Mortished]</ref> [[Peter Hitchens]] is the [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]], now [[Church of England]] brother of atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]]. In an article entitled "Britain Needs God" [[Creation Ministries International]] declared:
{{cquote|Peter also wrote of what he saw as the growing public discourtesy and incivility in [[Britain]]. When he returned to London, after a five-year absence, he was shocked by the decline in people’s behaviour. He commented, “The rapid vanishing of [[Christianity]] from public consciousness and life, as the last fully [[Christian]] generation ages and disappears, seems to me to be a major part of it. I do not think I would have been half so shocked by the squalor and rudeness of 1990 [[Moscow]], if I had not come from a country where Christian forbearance was still well-established. If I had then been able to see the [[London]] of 2010, I would have been equally shocked.” In many respects, Peter’s book is a warning to people, as to the kind of society they can expect if they continue to reject Christian beliefs.<ref>[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'']</ref>}}

In an article entitled "Why is England Burning", the Australian Bible study site Creation Ministries International ascribed the British riots of August 2012 to a "moral and social decline" that has been "the inevitable consequence of a nation rejecting God and His Word."<ref>[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning?'']</ref>

== See also ==
*[[English Painting]]
*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man Sir John Chilcot 'wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry'.]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests.]

== Notes ==

<references/>

{{European Union}}

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

User talk:GeorgeLi

2012-02-07T23:03:15Z

GeorgeLi: /* United Kingdom */

United Kingdom

2012-02-07T22:41:26Z

GeorgeLi: /* Sports and Pastimes */ Adding citation - Scotland have never made it beyond the 1st round of the World Cup but still have massive support.

United Kingdom

2012-02-07T22:35:49Z

GeorgeLi: Undo revision 959540 by DamianJohn (talk)Why? Nobody else does.

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|map2 =UK location.png
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =David Cameron
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =62,698,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its [[head of state]] is [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]].

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. British values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], 1600-1960, and British contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] Church ("Church of England"), a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
[[File:London Thames Sunset panorama 2008.jpg|thumb|left|London - Thames panorama.]]
The official name of the nation (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.<ref> From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. </ref> The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents. The short version for historical topics is either "Britain" or "Great Britain." The short version for recent events (since the 1970s) is "United Kingdom" or "UK" The adjective is always '''"British"'''.

Britain was part of the [[British Empire]], which has become the "British Commonwealth", and is mostly a discussion club --Britain has a few scattered minor possessions but gave up its last important colony--[[Hong Kong]]--in 1997.
[[File:Westminster in the evening.jpg|thumb|280px|Westminster in the evening.]]
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is now sometimes considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member countries and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in remote Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland.

MacColl (2008) explores the use of the term 'Britain' in English, French, and Latin texts from the 12th century to the 16th. The term was flexible, used in a variety of ways (geographically, politically, and ethnically), and not always indicative of any specific meaning. The English at first tended to conflate 'Britain' with England or the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, though the term 'Greater Britain' was applied starting in the 14th century to refer to the entire island. The Scottish, beginning in the 15th century, used the term in the modern sense - as reflective of the entire island of Great Britain and the 'polity' of England, Wales, and Scotland. This latter usage paved the way for the relatively smooth ideological transition after the 1707 Acts of Union.<ref> Alan MacColl, "The Meaning of 'Britain' in Medieval and Early Modern England." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(2): 248-269</ref>

===Anthem===
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. Should a male heir accede to the throne, the anthem will become "God Save the King".<ref> This same melody is also sung by American schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".</ref>

The constituent nations have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''Flower of Scotland''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''Land of Hope and Glory'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is more commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|340px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe.

A net total of 408,000 people were added to the UK population in 2008, the largest numerical increase since 1972. This was partly due to the highest fertility rate in more than three decades. More than half of the increase in births last year was due to non-UK born mothers.

There is also an ever-increasing aging population with the number of people over 85 now at a record 1.3 million, the equivalent of one in every 50 people.

===Education===
[[File:Royal College of Music 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Royal College of Music.]]
The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. "Public" schools are elite private prep schools, such as [[Eton]] and [[Rugby School|Rugby]], attended by youth whose families can afford to pay high tuition rates.

About thirty six percent of British students go on to post-secondary education.

Higher education has been a speciality for over 500 years at Oxbridge ([[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]), with new "red brick" universities added in the 19th century and many others in the late 20th century. Universities contribute £33 billion a year to the economy. Britain has a strong attraction for international students, with 342,000 attending in 2007 (compared to 672,000 in the U.S. and 183,000 in Australia). They spend £1.5 billion in tuition in Britain annually, plus another £0.4 billion off campus.

===Demographics===
[[File:Youth UK.JPG|thumb|British youth.]]
A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Ethnic tensions===

Britain is home to 2.4 million Muslims from numerous ethnicities. This population is growing 10 times faster than the national average. Regarded as one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, Britain struggles with questions of integration, particularly the social exclusion of its Muslims, as well as the psychological aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings on London’s public transport system carried out by young Britons of Pakistani descent, which left 52 people dead and over 700 injured.

[[File:Children.jpg|390px|center|Seventh-day Adventists.]]

===Religion===
[[File:Canterbury Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Canterbury Cathedral (photographed during 1890-1900).]]
Religious faith, according to a 2011 survey, has declined sharply in Britain over the last two decades. Now only 42% of people describe themselves as Christian, as opposed to 66% in 1990. Most of the decline is due to a drift away from the Church of England, it is claimed, with only 20% claiming allegiance, down from 40%.

In 2003 the Office of National Statistics estimated 29% of the population identified with Anglicanism, 10% with the Catholic Church, and 14% with other Protestant churches. A 2007 survey reported that the number of Catholics (mostly Irish) attending Sunday services has overtaken the number of Anglicans doing so. A September 2006 English Church Census reported that Methodists were decreasing as a percentage of the population, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal churches, many churches from Africa, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, almost entirely immigrants, were increasing.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108478.htm U.S. State Department Report, 2008]</ref>

Individuals with no religious belief comprised 21% of the population in 2009. Muslims comprise 3% of the population. The Muslim community is predominantly South Asian in origin, but other groups from the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Levant are represented. In addition, there is a growing number of indigenous converts. Although estimates vary, the Government places the number of mosques in the whole country at one thousand. Groups comprising 1% or less of the population include Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Individuals from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds are concentrated in London and other large urban areas, primarily in England.

Attendance at religious services was significantly different from the number of adherents. According to a report released on May 8, 2008, by Religious Trends, only 4 million Christians attend services on a regular basis (defined as at least once a month) in the country. These figures do not include Northern Ireland, where higher%ages reportedly attend both Catholic (more than 60%) and Protestant (more than 35%) services. The Religious Trends report stated that more than 50% of Muslims regularly worship at mosques. Figures for Jews and other religious groups were unavailable.

Religious affiliation was not evenly distributed among ethnicities. According to the 2001 census, approximately 70% of the white population described themselves as Christians. Nearly 75% of black Caribbean respondents stated that they were Christians, as did 70% of black Africans. Meanwhile, 45% of Indians were Hindus and 29% were Sikhs. Approximately 92% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were Muslims.

In Northern Ireland, where divisions between nationalists and unionists evolved largely along religious lines, the 2001 census showed that 53.1% were Protestants and 43.8% were Catholics. Many Catholics and Protestants continued to live in segregated communities in Northern Ireland, although many middle class neighborhoods were mixed communities. The policy of the Government remained one of promotion of religious tolerance.

There are two established (or state) churches--The [[Church of England]] (Anglican) and the [[Church of Scotland]] (Presbyterian). The Act of Settlement, enacted in 1688, states that no Catholic, or person married to a Catholic, may ascend the throne.
====Religion in schools====
The Government provides financial support—up to 90% of the total capital costs of the buildings and 100% of running costs, including teachers' salaries - to sectarian educational institutions that are commonly referred to as "faith schools".
[[File:Matthew Boulton College.jpg|thumb|Matthew Boulton College.]]
The Government also helps fund the repair and maintenance of all listed places of worship for religious groups nationwide and contributes to the budget of the Church Conservation Trust, which preserves "redundant" Church of England buildings of architectural or historic significance.

The Government has not classified the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and therefore has not granted the organization recognition for charitable status.

More than 30% of state schools had a religious character. Nearly all of the 6,949 "faith schools" are associated with Christian denominations, although there are 31 Jewish, 7 Islamic, and 2 Sikh schools. An additional two Jewish, three Islamic, and two Sikh schools have also been tentatively approved by the Government to open. In addition, several hundred independent schools of a religious nature receive no state support but must meet government quality standards. Controversy arose in 2006 over 100 Islamic schools when an Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) evaluation of these schools showed many were "little more than places where the Koran was recited." The schools were given time to correct their deficiencies. A review is due in 2010. Some Christian faith schools also faced controversy. Some were accused of not following the national curriculum in science, teaching creationism instead. During the reporting period, a further controversy erupted when it was learned that some faith schools were not following an "open" admission policy as required by law, denying admission to both special needs children and those outside the faith of the school administrators. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have an agreement to voluntarily accept up to 25% of places for pupils from another religious group or no religious group.

Almost all schools in Northern Ireland receive state support. More than 90% of students attended schools that were either predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Integrated schools served approximately 5% of school-age children whose families voluntarily chose this option, often after overcoming significant obstacles to provide the resources to start a new school and demonstrate its sustainability for 3 years before government funding begins. Demand for places in integrated schools outweighed the limited number of places available. The May 8, 2007, devolution, or granting of power, authorized the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on academic selection. Now there are more than 50 integrated schools, and the new Government permits existing schools to petition to change from sectarian to integrated. More petition for that status than are granted it. Some have accused the Government of a go-slow approach to avoid sectarian animus.

The law requires religious education for all children, ages 3 to 19, in publicly maintained schools. In England and Wales it forms part of the core curriculum in accordance with the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. However, the shape and content of religious instruction throughout the country is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabuses must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils. Schools with a religious designation follow a syllabus drawn up by the school governors according to the trust deed of the school. All parents have the legal right to request that their children not participate in religious education, but the school must approve this request.

Daily collective prayer or worship of "a wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" is practiced in schools in England and Wales, a requirement that may be waived for students who obtain permission of the school authorities. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 permits sixth form students (generally 16-19-year-olds) to withdraw themselves from worship without their parents' permission or action. This new law does not exempt sixth form students from religious education classes. Non-Christian worship is permitted with approval of the authorities. Teachers have the right not to participate in collective worship, without prejudice, unless they work for a faith school.

After several controversial court decisions prohibiting full-face veils in school (but not head scarves) and the wearing of a Christian chastity ring, the Department of Education provided guidance that advises schools to "… act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation. Some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was inappropriate for the Government to provide guidance that regulated Muslim communities in matters concerning the expression of their religious beliefs. But it is also legally possible under the act, according to the guidance, to have a school uniform policy that "restricts the freedom of pupils to manifest their religion" on the grounds of health and safety and the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Government's guidance is meant to remind "head teachers" to act with a degree of sensitivity when considering decisions that will impact the cultural complexion of their communities.

====Census====

According to the 2001 Census the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
[[File:Wembley Stadium.jpg|thumb|230px|Wembley Stadium.]]
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]], [[baseball]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, rugby union, and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League. This league is sponsored by Barclays Bank, so has the official name "Barclays Premier League". Many of the Premier League's teams are well known outside the United Kingdom, especially the "big four" (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) and maintain followings around the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

United Kingdom supporters, unlike those of the United States, will virtually never support any team that is an underdog (with the exceptions of West Ham United, Partick Thistle, Bromley, Manchester City, St Mirren, Norwich, Kilmarnock, Blackburn Rovers and the Scottish national team.) It is surmised that this is due to the high levels of atheism. <ref>See the evidence provided at [[Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?]]</ref>

The UK is also renowned for its music, and is the home of bands like [[The Beatles]] and [[Radiohead]], as well as festivals such as [[Creamfields]]

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''
[[File:Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.JPG|thumb|200px|Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.]]
Nationalist movements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights". Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and can remain in office for so long as he or she has the support of a majority in that body.

==Parliament==
[[File:Westminster palace Charles Barry.jpg|left|380px]]
Parliament was authorized in the [[Magna Carta]] (1215), and first summoned by King Edward I in 1296, the oldest governing body in the world. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. Elections are called by the prime minister, but the maximum length of a parliament is usually 5 years (except in wartime). The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. Normally the government--the prime minister and cabinet--have full control of the House. If they lose control and new general election is held. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a "First past the post" system and there is no proportional representation. The upshot is that a third party with under 25% of the vote typically obtains very few seats.

==Constituent countries==
[[File:Scottish Eilean Donan castle.jpg|thumb|300px|Scottish Eilean Donan castle.]]
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement", and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:674uyyhju.jpg|thumb|David Cameron]]
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon [[David Cameron]] MP'''
*Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the council '''- Rt Hon [[Nick Clegg]] MP'''<ref name="LibDem">Member of the [[Liberal Democrats]]</ref>
*First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon [[William Hague]] MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon [[George Osborne]] MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Kenneth Clark QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Theresa May MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade '''- Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP'''
*Secretary of State for Education'''- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Rt Hon Michael Moore MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC'''
*Minister without Portfolio '''- Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General'''- Rt Hon Francis Maude MP'''
*Minister of State in the Cabinet Office'''- Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP'''
*Minister for Universities and Science '''- David Willetts MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal '''- Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP'''
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
[[David Cameron]] became Prime Minister on May 11, 2010, after [[Gordon Brown]] resigned. Cameron leads a [[Conservative Party|Con]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Lib Dem]] coalition after failing to achieve a majority in the the 2010 general election

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|right|240px]]
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.
[[File:Royal Naval college UK.jpg|thumb|center|380px|Royal Naval College.]]
===Iraq===
The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner under the designation Operation TELIC. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

<blockquote>
Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests. The British Government saw Iraqi oil as "vital" to the UK's long-term energy security, and the effective privatisation of its oil industry was central to the post-invasion plan for the country, according to previously unseen Whitehall documents. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html] ''The Independent.''
</blockquote>

The Iraq Inquiry is conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict; the inquiry is concerned over Mr. Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chilcot-to-grill-blair-on-how-he-misled-iraq-war-inquiry-2185725.html] The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot (1939) was Staff Counsellor to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (1999-2004) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (2002-06).

===Afghanistan===
Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The British force in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] is at 9,000 in late 2009 and will rise by an extra 500 troops in 2010. British forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, Britain has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S.
===Israel===
Britain has shown a greater willingness than the United States to criticize the Israelis over settlements and what some call the disproportionate responses to provocations from Gaza and southern Lebanon. (Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman is among the most vocal.) Like his predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, former Foreign Secretary Milliband has been unequivocal: "Settlements are illegal under international law," he told Parliament in 2008; "They are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution." His successor William Hague, on 20 March 2011, "expressed our serious concern over the recent announcement of 400 new housing units in the West Bank. Continued settlements run contrary to peace.” A BBC poll in March 2011 found that 14% of British subjects have a generally positive opinion of Israel while 66% have a generally negative opinion.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the countries' alliances during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
[[File:London.jpg|thumb|left|280px|London's financial center.]]
Britain has been hard hit by the [[Recession of 2008]], with its major banks taken over or subsidized by the government. Real gross domestic product declined by 4.6% in 2009, and is expected to rise by 0.6% before 2010 and probably will continue to increase by 1% in 2011.

Britain has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The previous Labour government continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.
[[File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop 2009.jpg|thumb|440px|Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, 2009.]]
London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

Britain is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2009 est.): -4.6%
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK has never joined the [[Euro]] zone.

==History==
[[File:Stonehenge.jpg|thumb|left|Stonehenge.]]
The Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by [[Sir Francis Grant]].]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.

====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
[[File:Bradford Industrial Museum.jpg|thumb|left|Bradford Industrial Museum.]]
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

 

====End of Empire====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The UK joined world war I because of the invasion of [[Belgium]], and subsequently began [[World War II]] after the invasion of [[Poland]]. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominions"; beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s.

== United Kingdom and moral decline ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] in Britain.]]
''See also:'' [[Britain and morality]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

In 2011 and in recent years, there have been number of reports on the decline of morality in [[Britain]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'' by Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning? by Creation Ministries International'']
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695318/UK-riots-David-Cameron-promises-to-restore-sense-of-morality-as-police-get-new-powers.html UK riots: David Cameron promises to restore 'sense of morality' as police get new powers]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=171651 British morality, Jerusalem Post, By JERUSALEM POST, 03/24/2010]
*[http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000237.php The Strange Death of Moral Britain by Christie Davies]
*[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/carl-mortished/uk-welfare-plan-saves-money-but-morally-bankrupt/article1790653/ U.K. welfare plan: Saves money, but morally bankrupt, Globe and Mail,Nov. 09, 2010 by Carl Mortished]</ref> [[Peter Hitchens]] is the [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]], now [[Church of England]] brother of atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]]. In an article entitled "Britain Needs God" [[Creation Ministries International]] declared:
{{cquote|Peter also wrote of what he saw as the growing public discourtesy and incivility in [[Britain]]. When he returned to London, after a five-year absence, he was shocked by the decline in people’s behaviour. He commented, “The rapid vanishing of [[Christianity]] from public consciousness and life, as the last fully [[Christian]] generation ages and disappears, seems to me to be a major part of it. I do not think I would have been half so shocked by the squalor and rudeness of 1990 [[Moscow]], if I had not come from a country where Christian forbearance was still well-established. If I had then been able to see the [[London]] of 2010, I would have been equally shocked.” In many respects, Peter’s book is a warning to people, as to the kind of society they can expect if they continue to reject Christian beliefs.<ref>[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'']</ref>}}

In an article entitled "Why is England Burning", the Australian Bible study site Creation Ministries International ascribed the British riots of August 2012 to a "moral and social decline" that has been "the inevitable consequence of a nation rejecting God and His Word."<ref>[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning?'']</ref>

== See also ==
*[[English Painting]]
*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man Sir John Chilcot 'wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry'.]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests.]

== Notes ==

<references/>

{{European Union}}

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

United Kingdom

2012-02-07T22:30:03Z

GeorgeLi: /* Sports and Pastimes */ Strange but true: they invented it.

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|map2 =UK location.png
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =David Cameron
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =62,698,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its [[head of state]] is [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]].

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. British values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], 1600-1960, and British contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] Church ("Church of England"), a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
[[File:London Thames Sunset panorama 2008.jpg|thumb|left|London - Thames panorama.]]
The official name of the nation (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.<ref> From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. </ref> The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents. The short version for historical topics is either "Britain" or "Great Britain." The short version for recent events (since the 1970s) is "United Kingdom" or "UK" The adjective is always '''"British"'''.

Britain was part of the [[British Empire]], which has become the "British Commonwealth", and is mostly a discussion club --Britain has a few scattered minor possessions but gave up its last important colony--[[Hong Kong]]--in 1997.
[[File:Westminster in the evening.jpg|thumb|280px|Westminster in the evening.]]
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is now sometimes considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member countries and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in remote Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland.

MacColl (2008) explores the use of the term 'Britain' in English, French, and Latin texts from the 12th century to the 16th. The term was flexible, used in a variety of ways (geographically, politically, and ethnically), and not always indicative of any specific meaning. The English at first tended to conflate 'Britain' with England or the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, though the term 'Greater Britain' was applied starting in the 14th century to refer to the entire island. The Scottish, beginning in the 15th century, used the term in the modern sense - as reflective of the entire island of Great Britain and the 'polity' of England, Wales, and Scotland. This latter usage paved the way for the relatively smooth ideological transition after the 1707 Acts of Union.<ref> Alan MacColl, "The Meaning of 'Britain' in Medieval and Early Modern England." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(2): 248-269</ref>

===Anthem===
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. Should a male heir accede to the throne, the anthem will become "God Save the King".<ref> This same melody is also sung by American schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".</ref>

The constituent nations have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''Flower of Scotland''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''Land of Hope and Glory'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is more commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|340px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe.

A net total of 408,000 people were added to the UK population in 2008, the largest numerical increase since 1972. This was partly due to the highest fertility rate in more than three decades. More than half of the increase in births last year was due to non-UK born mothers.

There is also an ever-increasing aging population with the number of people over 85 now at a record 1.3 million, the equivalent of one in every 50 people.

===Education===
[[File:Royal College of Music 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Royal College of Music.]]
The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. "Public" schools are elite private prep schools, such as [[Eton]] and [[Rugby School|Rugby]], attended by youth whose families can afford to pay high tuition rates.

About thirty six percent of British students go on to post-secondary education.

Higher education has been a speciality for over 500 years at Oxbridge ([[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]), with new "red brick" universities added in the 19th century and many others in the late 20th century. Universities contribute £33 billion a year to the economy. Britain has a strong attraction for international students, with 342,000 attending in 2007 (compared to 672,000 in the U.S. and 183,000 in Australia). They spend £1.5 billion in tuition in Britain annually, plus another £0.4 billion off campus.

===Demographics===
[[File:Youth UK.JPG|thumb|British youth.]]
A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Ethnic tensions===

Britain is home to 2.4 million Muslims from numerous ethnicities. This population is growing 10 times faster than the national average. Regarded as one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, Britain struggles with questions of integration, particularly the social exclusion of its Muslims, as well as the psychological aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings on London’s public transport system carried out by young Britons of Pakistani descent, which left 52 people dead and over 700 injured.

[[File:Children.jpg|390px|center|Seventh-day Adventists.]]

===Religion===
[[File:Canterbury Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Canterbury Cathedral (photographed during 1890-1900).]]
Religious faith, according to a 2011 survey, has declined sharply in Britain over the last two decades. Now only 42% of people describe themselves as Christian, as opposed to 66% in 1990. Most of the decline is due to a drift away from the Church of England, it is claimed, with only 20% claiming allegiance, down from 40%.

In 2003 the Office of National Statistics estimated 29% of the population identified with Anglicanism, 10% with the Catholic Church, and 14% with other Protestant churches. A 2007 survey reported that the number of Catholics (mostly Irish) attending Sunday services has overtaken the number of Anglicans doing so. A September 2006 English Church Census reported that Methodists were decreasing as a percentage of the population, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal churches, many churches from Africa, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, almost entirely immigrants, were increasing.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108478.htm U.S. State Department Report, 2008]</ref>

Individuals with no religious belief comprised 21% of the population in 2009. Muslims comprise 3% of the population. The Muslim community is predominantly South Asian in origin, but other groups from the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Levant are represented. In addition, there is a growing number of indigenous converts. Although estimates vary, the Government places the number of mosques in the whole country at one thousand. Groups comprising 1% or less of the population include Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Individuals from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds are concentrated in London and other large urban areas, primarily in England.

Attendance at religious services was significantly different from the number of adherents. According to a report released on May 8, 2008, by Religious Trends, only 4 million Christians attend services on a regular basis (defined as at least once a month) in the country. These figures do not include Northern Ireland, where higher%ages reportedly attend both Catholic (more than 60%) and Protestant (more than 35%) services. The Religious Trends report stated that more than 50% of Muslims regularly worship at mosques. Figures for Jews and other religious groups were unavailable.

Religious affiliation was not evenly distributed among ethnicities. According to the 2001 census, approximately 70% of the white population described themselves as Christians. Nearly 75% of black Caribbean respondents stated that they were Christians, as did 70% of black Africans. Meanwhile, 45% of Indians were Hindus and 29% were Sikhs. Approximately 92% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were Muslims.

In Northern Ireland, where divisions between nationalists and unionists evolved largely along religious lines, the 2001 census showed that 53.1% were Protestants and 43.8% were Catholics. Many Catholics and Protestants continued to live in segregated communities in Northern Ireland, although many middle class neighborhoods were mixed communities. The policy of the Government remained one of promotion of religious tolerance.

There are two established (or state) churches--The [[Church of England]] (Anglican) and the [[Church of Scotland]] (Presbyterian). The Act of Settlement, enacted in 1688, states that no Catholic, or person married to a Catholic, may ascend the throne.
====Religion in schools====
The Government provides financial support—up to 90% of the total capital costs of the buildings and 100% of running costs, including teachers' salaries - to sectarian educational institutions that are commonly referred to as "faith schools".
[[File:Matthew Boulton College.jpg|thumb|Matthew Boulton College.]]
The Government also helps fund the repair and maintenance of all listed places of worship for religious groups nationwide and contributes to the budget of the Church Conservation Trust, which preserves "redundant" Church of England buildings of architectural or historic significance.

The Government has not classified the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and therefore has not granted the organization recognition for charitable status.

More than 30% of state schools had a religious character. Nearly all of the 6,949 "faith schools" are associated with Christian denominations, although there are 31 Jewish, 7 Islamic, and 2 Sikh schools. An additional two Jewish, three Islamic, and two Sikh schools have also been tentatively approved by the Government to open. In addition, several hundred independent schools of a religious nature receive no state support but must meet government quality standards. Controversy arose in 2006 over 100 Islamic schools when an Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) evaluation of these schools showed many were "little more than places where the Koran was recited." The schools were given time to correct their deficiencies. A review is due in 2010. Some Christian faith schools also faced controversy. Some were accused of not following the national curriculum in science, teaching creationism instead. During the reporting period, a further controversy erupted when it was learned that some faith schools were not following an "open" admission policy as required by law, denying admission to both special needs children and those outside the faith of the school administrators. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have an agreement to voluntarily accept up to 25% of places for pupils from another religious group or no religious group.

Almost all schools in Northern Ireland receive state support. More than 90% of students attended schools that were either predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Integrated schools served approximately 5% of school-age children whose families voluntarily chose this option, often after overcoming significant obstacles to provide the resources to start a new school and demonstrate its sustainability for 3 years before government funding begins. Demand for places in integrated schools outweighed the limited number of places available. The May 8, 2007, devolution, or granting of power, authorized the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on academic selection. Now there are more than 50 integrated schools, and the new Government permits existing schools to petition to change from sectarian to integrated. More petition for that status than are granted it. Some have accused the Government of a go-slow approach to avoid sectarian animus.

The law requires religious education for all children, ages 3 to 19, in publicly maintained schools. In England and Wales it forms part of the core curriculum in accordance with the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. However, the shape and content of religious instruction throughout the country is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabuses must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils. Schools with a religious designation follow a syllabus drawn up by the school governors according to the trust deed of the school. All parents have the legal right to request that their children not participate in religious education, but the school must approve this request.

Daily collective prayer or worship of "a wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" is practiced in schools in England and Wales, a requirement that may be waived for students who obtain permission of the school authorities. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 permits sixth form students (generally 16-19-year-olds) to withdraw themselves from worship without their parents' permission or action. This new law does not exempt sixth form students from religious education classes. Non-Christian worship is permitted with approval of the authorities. Teachers have the right not to participate in collective worship, without prejudice, unless they work for a faith school.

After several controversial court decisions prohibiting full-face veils in school (but not head scarves) and the wearing of a Christian chastity ring, the Department of Education provided guidance that advises schools to "… act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation. Some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was inappropriate for the Government to provide guidance that regulated Muslim communities in matters concerning the expression of their religious beliefs. But it is also legally possible under the act, according to the guidance, to have a school uniform policy that "restricts the freedom of pupils to manifest their religion" on the grounds of health and safety and the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Government's guidance is meant to remind "head teachers" to act with a degree of sensitivity when considering decisions that will impact the cultural complexion of their communities.

====Census====

According to the 2001 Census the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
[[File:Wembley Stadium.jpg|thumb|230px|Wembley Stadium.]]
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]], [[baseball]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, rugby union, and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League. This league is sponsored by Barclays Bank, so has the official name "Barclays Premier League". Many of the Premier League's teams are well known outside the United Kingdom, especially the "big four" (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) and maintain followings around the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

United Kingdom supporters, unlike those of the United States, will virtually never support any team that is an underdog (with the exceptions of West Ham United, Partick Thistle, Bromley, Manchester City, St Mirren, Norwich, Kilmarnock, Blackburn Rovers and the Scottish national team.) It is surmised that this is due to the high levels of atheism. <ref>See the evidence provided at [[Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?]]</ref>

The UK is also renowned for its music, and is the home of bands like [[The Beatles]] and [[Radiohead]], as well as festivals such as [[Creamfields]]

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''
[[File:Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.JPG|thumb|200px|Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.]]
Nationalist movements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights". Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and can remain in office for so long as he or she has the support of a majority in that body.

==Parliament==
[[File:Westminster palace Charles Barry.jpg|left|380px]]
Parliament was authorized in the [[Magna Carta]] (1215), and first summoned by King Edward I in 1296, the oldest governing body in the world. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. Elections are called by the prime minister, but the maximum length of a parliament is usually 5 years (except in wartime). The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. Normally the government--the prime minister and cabinet--have full control of the House. If they lose control and new general election is held. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a "First past the post" system and there is no proportional representation. The upshot is that a third party with under 25% of the vote typically obtains very few seats.

==Constituent countries==
[[File:Scottish Eilean Donan castle.jpg|thumb|300px|Scottish Eilean Donan castle.]]
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement", and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:674uyyhju.jpg|thumb|David Cameron]]
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon [[David Cameron]] MP'''
*Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the council '''- Rt Hon [[Nick Clegg]] MP'''<ref name="LibDem">Member of the [[Liberal Democrats]]</ref>
*First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon [[William Hague]] MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon [[George Osborne]] MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Kenneth Clark QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Theresa May MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade '''- Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP'''
*Secretary of State for Education'''- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Rt Hon Michael Moore MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC'''
*Minister without Portfolio '''- Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General'''- Rt Hon Francis Maude MP'''
*Minister of State in the Cabinet Office'''- Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP'''
*Minister for Universities and Science '''- David Willetts MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal '''- Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP'''
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
[[David Cameron]] became Prime Minister on May 11, 2010, after [[Gordon Brown]] resigned. Cameron leads a [[Conservative Party|Con]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Lib Dem]] coalition after failing to achieve a majority in the the 2010 general election

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|right|240px]]
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.
[[File:Royal Naval college UK.jpg|thumb|center|380px|Royal Naval College.]]
===Iraq===
The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner under the designation Operation TELIC. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

<blockquote>
Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests. The British Government saw Iraqi oil as "vital" to the UK's long-term energy security, and the effective privatisation of its oil industry was central to the post-invasion plan for the country, according to previously unseen Whitehall documents. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html] ''The Independent.''
</blockquote>

The Iraq Inquiry is conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict; the inquiry is concerned over Mr. Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chilcot-to-grill-blair-on-how-he-misled-iraq-war-inquiry-2185725.html] The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot (1939) was Staff Counsellor to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (1999-2004) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (2002-06).

===Afghanistan===
Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The British force in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] is at 9,000 in late 2009 and will rise by an extra 500 troops in 2010. British forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, Britain has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S.
===Israel===
Britain has shown a greater willingness than the United States to criticize the Israelis over settlements and what some call the disproportionate responses to provocations from Gaza and southern Lebanon. (Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman is among the most vocal.) Like his predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, former Foreign Secretary Milliband has been unequivocal: "Settlements are illegal under international law," he told Parliament in 2008; "They are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution." His successor William Hague, on 20 March 2011, "expressed our serious concern over the recent announcement of 400 new housing units in the West Bank. Continued settlements run contrary to peace.” A BBC poll in March 2011 found that 14% of British subjects have a generally positive opinion of Israel while 66% have a generally negative opinion.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the countries' alliances during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
[[File:London.jpg|thumb|left|280px|London's financial center.]]
Britain has been hard hit by the [[Recession of 2008]], with its major banks taken over or subsidized by the government. Real gross domestic product declined by 4.6% in 2009, and is expected to rise by 0.6% before 2010 and probably will continue to increase by 1% in 2011.

Britain has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The previous Labour government continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.
[[File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop 2009.jpg|thumb|440px|Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, 2009.]]
London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

Britain is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2009 est.): -4.6%
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK has never joined the [[Euro]] zone.

==History==
[[File:Stonehenge.jpg|thumb|left|Stonehenge.]]
The Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by [[Sir Francis Grant]].]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.

====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
[[File:Bradford Industrial Museum.jpg|thumb|left|Bradford Industrial Museum.]]
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

 

====End of Empire====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The UK joined world war I because of the invasion of [[Belgium]], and subsequently began [[World War II]] after the invasion of [[Poland]]. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominions"; beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s.

== United Kingdom and moral decline ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] in Britain.]]
''See also:'' [[Britain and morality]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

In 2011 and in recent years, there have been number of reports on the decline of morality in [[Britain]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'' by Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning? by Creation Ministries International'']
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695318/UK-riots-David-Cameron-promises-to-restore-sense-of-morality-as-police-get-new-powers.html UK riots: David Cameron promises to restore 'sense of morality' as police get new powers]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=171651 British morality, Jerusalem Post, By JERUSALEM POST, 03/24/2010]
*[http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000237.php The Strange Death of Moral Britain by Christie Davies]
*[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/carl-mortished/uk-welfare-plan-saves-money-but-morally-bankrupt/article1790653/ U.K. welfare plan: Saves money, but morally bankrupt, Globe and Mail,Nov. 09, 2010 by Carl Mortished]</ref> [[Peter Hitchens]] is the [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]], now [[Church of England]] brother of atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]]. In an article entitled "Britain Needs God" [[Creation Ministries International]] declared:
{{cquote|Peter also wrote of what he saw as the growing public discourtesy and incivility in [[Britain]]. When he returned to London, after a five-year absence, he was shocked by the decline in people’s behaviour. He commented, “The rapid vanishing of [[Christianity]] from public consciousness and life, as the last fully [[Christian]] generation ages and disappears, seems to me to be a major part of it. I do not think I would have been half so shocked by the squalor and rudeness of 1990 [[Moscow]], if I had not come from a country where Christian forbearance was still well-established. If I had then been able to see the [[London]] of 2010, I would have been equally shocked.” In many respects, Peter’s book is a warning to people, as to the kind of society they can expect if they continue to reject Christian beliefs.<ref>[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'']</ref>}}

In an article entitled "Why is England Burning", the Australian Bible study site Creation Ministries International ascribed the British riots of August 2012 to a "moral and social decline" that has been "the inevitable consequence of a nation rejecting God and His Word."<ref>[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning?'']</ref>

== See also ==
*[[English Painting]]
*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man Sir John Chilcot 'wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry'.]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests.]

== Notes ==

<references/>

{{European Union}}

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

United Kingdom

2012-02-07T22:28:28Z

GeorgeLi: /* Sports and Pastimes */

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|map2 =UK location.png
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =David Cameron
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =62,698,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its [[head of state]] is [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]].

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. British values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], 1600-1960, and British contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] Church ("Church of England"), a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
[[File:London Thames Sunset panorama 2008.jpg|thumb|left|London - Thames panorama.]]
The official name of the nation (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.<ref> From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. </ref> The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents. The short version for historical topics is either "Britain" or "Great Britain." The short version for recent events (since the 1970s) is "United Kingdom" or "UK" The adjective is always '''"British"'''.

Britain was part of the [[British Empire]], which has become the "British Commonwealth", and is mostly a discussion club --Britain has a few scattered minor possessions but gave up its last important colony--[[Hong Kong]]--in 1997.
[[File:Westminster in the evening.jpg|thumb|280px|Westminster in the evening.]]
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is now sometimes considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member countries and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in remote Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland.

MacColl (2008) explores the use of the term 'Britain' in English, French, and Latin texts from the 12th century to the 16th. The term was flexible, used in a variety of ways (geographically, politically, and ethnically), and not always indicative of any specific meaning. The English at first tended to conflate 'Britain' with England or the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, though the term 'Greater Britain' was applied starting in the 14th century to refer to the entire island. The Scottish, beginning in the 15th century, used the term in the modern sense - as reflective of the entire island of Great Britain and the 'polity' of England, Wales, and Scotland. This latter usage paved the way for the relatively smooth ideological transition after the 1707 Acts of Union.<ref> Alan MacColl, "The Meaning of 'Britain' in Medieval and Early Modern England." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(2): 248-269</ref>

===Anthem===
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. Should a male heir accede to the throne, the anthem will become "God Save the King".<ref> This same melody is also sung by American schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".</ref>

The constituent nations have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''Flower of Scotland''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''Land of Hope and Glory'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is more commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|340px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe.

A net total of 408,000 people were added to the UK population in 2008, the largest numerical increase since 1972. This was partly due to the highest fertility rate in more than three decades. More than half of the increase in births last year was due to non-UK born mothers.

There is also an ever-increasing aging population with the number of people over 85 now at a record 1.3 million, the equivalent of one in every 50 people.

===Education===
[[File:Royal College of Music 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Royal College of Music.]]
The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. "Public" schools are elite private prep schools, such as [[Eton]] and [[Rugby School|Rugby]], attended by youth whose families can afford to pay high tuition rates.

About thirty six percent of British students go on to post-secondary education.

Higher education has been a speciality for over 500 years at Oxbridge ([[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]), with new "red brick" universities added in the 19th century and many others in the late 20th century. Universities contribute £33 billion a year to the economy. Britain has a strong attraction for international students, with 342,000 attending in 2007 (compared to 672,000 in the U.S. and 183,000 in Australia). They spend £1.5 billion in tuition in Britain annually, plus another £0.4 billion off campus.

===Demographics===
[[File:Youth UK.JPG|thumb|British youth.]]
A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Ethnic tensions===

Britain is home to 2.4 million Muslims from numerous ethnicities. This population is growing 10 times faster than the national average. Regarded as one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, Britain struggles with questions of integration, particularly the social exclusion of its Muslims, as well as the psychological aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings on London’s public transport system carried out by young Britons of Pakistani descent, which left 52 people dead and over 700 injured.

[[File:Children.jpg|390px|center|Seventh-day Adventists.]]

===Religion===
[[File:Canterbury Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Canterbury Cathedral (photographed during 1890-1900).]]
Religious faith, according to a 2011 survey, has declined sharply in Britain over the last two decades. Now only 42% of people describe themselves as Christian, as opposed to 66% in 1990. Most of the decline is due to a drift away from the Church of England, it is claimed, with only 20% claiming allegiance, down from 40%.

In 2003 the Office of National Statistics estimated 29% of the population identified with Anglicanism, 10% with the Catholic Church, and 14% with other Protestant churches. A 2007 survey reported that the number of Catholics (mostly Irish) attending Sunday services has overtaken the number of Anglicans doing so. A September 2006 English Church Census reported that Methodists were decreasing as a percentage of the population, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal churches, many churches from Africa, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, almost entirely immigrants, were increasing.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108478.htm U.S. State Department Report, 2008]</ref>

Individuals with no religious belief comprised 21% of the population in 2009. Muslims comprise 3% of the population. The Muslim community is predominantly South Asian in origin, but other groups from the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Levant are represented. In addition, there is a growing number of indigenous converts. Although estimates vary, the Government places the number of mosques in the whole country at one thousand. Groups comprising 1% or less of the population include Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Individuals from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds are concentrated in London and other large urban areas, primarily in England.

Attendance at religious services was significantly different from the number of adherents. According to a report released on May 8, 2008, by Religious Trends, only 4 million Christians attend services on a regular basis (defined as at least once a month) in the country. These figures do not include Northern Ireland, where higher%ages reportedly attend both Catholic (more than 60%) and Protestant (more than 35%) services. The Religious Trends report stated that more than 50% of Muslims regularly worship at mosques. Figures for Jews and other religious groups were unavailable.

Religious affiliation was not evenly distributed among ethnicities. According to the 2001 census, approximately 70% of the white population described themselves as Christians. Nearly 75% of black Caribbean respondents stated that they were Christians, as did 70% of black Africans. Meanwhile, 45% of Indians were Hindus and 29% were Sikhs. Approximately 92% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were Muslims.

In Northern Ireland, where divisions between nationalists and unionists evolved largely along religious lines, the 2001 census showed that 53.1% were Protestants and 43.8% were Catholics. Many Catholics and Protestants continued to live in segregated communities in Northern Ireland, although many middle class neighborhoods were mixed communities. The policy of the Government remained one of promotion of religious tolerance.

There are two established (or state) churches--The [[Church of England]] (Anglican) and the [[Church of Scotland]] (Presbyterian). The Act of Settlement, enacted in 1688, states that no Catholic, or person married to a Catholic, may ascend the throne.
====Religion in schools====
The Government provides financial support—up to 90% of the total capital costs of the buildings and 100% of running costs, including teachers' salaries - to sectarian educational institutions that are commonly referred to as "faith schools".
[[File:Matthew Boulton College.jpg|thumb|Matthew Boulton College.]]
The Government also helps fund the repair and maintenance of all listed places of worship for religious groups nationwide and contributes to the budget of the Church Conservation Trust, which preserves "redundant" Church of England buildings of architectural or historic significance.

The Government has not classified the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and therefore has not granted the organization recognition for charitable status.

More than 30% of state schools had a religious character. Nearly all of the 6,949 "faith schools" are associated with Christian denominations, although there are 31 Jewish, 7 Islamic, and 2 Sikh schools. An additional two Jewish, three Islamic, and two Sikh schools have also been tentatively approved by the Government to open. In addition, several hundred independent schools of a religious nature receive no state support but must meet government quality standards. Controversy arose in 2006 over 100 Islamic schools when an Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) evaluation of these schools showed many were "little more than places where the Koran was recited." The schools were given time to correct their deficiencies. A review is due in 2010. Some Christian faith schools also faced controversy. Some were accused of not following the national curriculum in science, teaching creationism instead. During the reporting period, a further controversy erupted when it was learned that some faith schools were not following an "open" admission policy as required by law, denying admission to both special needs children and those outside the faith of the school administrators. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have an agreement to voluntarily accept up to 25% of places for pupils from another religious group or no religious group.

Almost all schools in Northern Ireland receive state support. More than 90% of students attended schools that were either predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Integrated schools served approximately 5% of school-age children whose families voluntarily chose this option, often after overcoming significant obstacles to provide the resources to start a new school and demonstrate its sustainability for 3 years before government funding begins. Demand for places in integrated schools outweighed the limited number of places available. The May 8, 2007, devolution, or granting of power, authorized the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on academic selection. Now there are more than 50 integrated schools, and the new Government permits existing schools to petition to change from sectarian to integrated. More petition for that status than are granted it. Some have accused the Government of a go-slow approach to avoid sectarian animus.

The law requires religious education for all children, ages 3 to 19, in publicly maintained schools. In England and Wales it forms part of the core curriculum in accordance with the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. However, the shape and content of religious instruction throughout the country is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabuses must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils. Schools with a religious designation follow a syllabus drawn up by the school governors according to the trust deed of the school. All parents have the legal right to request that their children not participate in religious education, but the school must approve this request.

Daily collective prayer or worship of "a wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" is practiced in schools in England and Wales, a requirement that may be waived for students who obtain permission of the school authorities. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 permits sixth form students (generally 16-19-year-olds) to withdraw themselves from worship without their parents' permission or action. This new law does not exempt sixth form students from religious education classes. Non-Christian worship is permitted with approval of the authorities. Teachers have the right not to participate in collective worship, without prejudice, unless they work for a faith school.

After several controversial court decisions prohibiting full-face veils in school (but not head scarves) and the wearing of a Christian chastity ring, the Department of Education provided guidance that advises schools to "… act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation. Some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was inappropriate for the Government to provide guidance that regulated Muslim communities in matters concerning the expression of their religious beliefs. But it is also legally possible under the act, according to the guidance, to have a school uniform policy that "restricts the freedom of pupils to manifest their religion" on the grounds of health and safety and the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Government's guidance is meant to remind "head teachers" to act with a degree of sensitivity when considering decisions that will impact the cultural complexion of their communities.

====Census====

According to the 2001 Census the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
[[File:Wembley Stadium.jpg|thumb|230px|Wembley Stadium.]]
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, rugby union, and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League. This league is sponsored by Barclays Bank, so has the official name "Barclays Premier League". Many of the Premier League's teams are well known outside the United Kingdom, especially the "big four" (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) and maintain followings around the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

United Kingdom supporters, unlike those of the United States, will virtually never support any team that is an underdog (with the exceptions of West Ham United, Partick Thistle, Bromley, Manchester City, St Mirren, Norwich, Kilmarnock, Blackburn Rovers and the Scottish national team.) It is surmised that this is due to the high levels of atheism. <ref>See the evidence provided at [[Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?]]</ref>

The UK is also renowned for its music, and is the home of bands like [[The Beatles]] and [[Radiohead]], as well as festivals such as [[Creamfields]]

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''
[[File:Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.JPG|thumb|200px|Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.]]
Nationalist movements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights". Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and can remain in office for so long as he or she has the support of a majority in that body.

==Parliament==
[[File:Westminster palace Charles Barry.jpg|left|380px]]
Parliament was authorized in the [[Magna Carta]] (1215), and first summoned by King Edward I in 1296, the oldest governing body in the world. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. Elections are called by the prime minister, but the maximum length of a parliament is usually 5 years (except in wartime). The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. Normally the government--the prime minister and cabinet--have full control of the House. If they lose control and new general election is held. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a "First past the post" system and there is no proportional representation. The upshot is that a third party with under 25% of the vote typically obtains very few seats.

==Constituent countries==
[[File:Scottish Eilean Donan castle.jpg|thumb|300px|Scottish Eilean Donan castle.]]
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement", and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:674uyyhju.jpg|thumb|David Cameron]]
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon [[David Cameron]] MP'''
*Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the council '''- Rt Hon [[Nick Clegg]] MP'''<ref name="LibDem">Member of the [[Liberal Democrats]]</ref>
*First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon [[William Hague]] MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon [[George Osborne]] MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Kenneth Clark QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Theresa May MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade '''- Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP'''
*Secretary of State for Education'''- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Rt Hon Michael Moore MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC'''
*Minister without Portfolio '''- Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General'''- Rt Hon Francis Maude MP'''
*Minister of State in the Cabinet Office'''- Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP'''
*Minister for Universities and Science '''- David Willetts MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal '''- Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP'''
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
[[David Cameron]] became Prime Minister on May 11, 2010, after [[Gordon Brown]] resigned. Cameron leads a [[Conservative Party|Con]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Lib Dem]] coalition after failing to achieve a majority in the the 2010 general election

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|right|240px]]
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.
[[File:Royal Naval college UK.jpg|thumb|center|380px|Royal Naval College.]]
===Iraq===
The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner under the designation Operation TELIC. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

<blockquote>
Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests. The British Government saw Iraqi oil as "vital" to the UK's long-term energy security, and the effective privatisation of its oil industry was central to the post-invasion plan for the country, according to previously unseen Whitehall documents. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html] ''The Independent.''
</blockquote>

The Iraq Inquiry is conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict; the inquiry is concerned over Mr. Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chilcot-to-grill-blair-on-how-he-misled-iraq-war-inquiry-2185725.html] The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot (1939) was Staff Counsellor to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (1999-2004) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (2002-06).

===Afghanistan===
Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The British force in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] is at 9,000 in late 2009 and will rise by an extra 500 troops in 2010. British forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, Britain has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S.
===Israel===
Britain has shown a greater willingness than the United States to criticize the Israelis over settlements and what some call the disproportionate responses to provocations from Gaza and southern Lebanon. (Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman is among the most vocal.) Like his predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, former Foreign Secretary Milliband has been unequivocal: "Settlements are illegal under international law," he told Parliament in 2008; "They are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution." His successor William Hague, on 20 March 2011, "expressed our serious concern over the recent announcement of 400 new housing units in the West Bank. Continued settlements run contrary to peace.” A BBC poll in March 2011 found that 14% of British subjects have a generally positive opinion of Israel while 66% have a generally negative opinion.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the countries' alliances during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
[[File:London.jpg|thumb|left|280px|London's financial center.]]
Britain has been hard hit by the [[Recession of 2008]], with its major banks taken over or subsidized by the government. Real gross domestic product declined by 4.6% in 2009, and is expected to rise by 0.6% before 2010 and probably will continue to increase by 1% in 2011.

Britain has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The previous Labour government continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.
[[File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop 2009.jpg|thumb|440px|Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, 2009.]]
London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

Britain is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2009 est.): -4.6%
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK has never joined the [[Euro]] zone.

==History==
[[File:Stonehenge.jpg|thumb|left|Stonehenge.]]
The Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by [[Sir Francis Grant]].]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.

====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
[[File:Bradford Industrial Museum.jpg|thumb|left|Bradford Industrial Museum.]]
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

 

====End of Empire====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The UK joined world war I because of the invasion of [[Belgium]], and subsequently began [[World War II]] after the invasion of [[Poland]]. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominions"; beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s.

== United Kingdom and moral decline ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] in Britain.]]
''See also:'' [[Britain and morality]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

In 2011 and in recent years, there have been number of reports on the decline of morality in [[Britain]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'' by Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning? by Creation Ministries International'']
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695318/UK-riots-David-Cameron-promises-to-restore-sense-of-morality-as-police-get-new-powers.html UK riots: David Cameron promises to restore 'sense of morality' as police get new powers]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=171651 British morality, Jerusalem Post, By JERUSALEM POST, 03/24/2010]
*[http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000237.php The Strange Death of Moral Britain by Christie Davies]
*[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/carl-mortished/uk-welfare-plan-saves-money-but-morally-bankrupt/article1790653/ U.K. welfare plan: Saves money, but morally bankrupt, Globe and Mail,Nov. 09, 2010 by Carl Mortished]</ref> [[Peter Hitchens]] is the [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]], now [[Church of England]] brother of atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]]. In an article entitled "Britain Needs God" [[Creation Ministries International]] declared:
{{cquote|Peter also wrote of what he saw as the growing public discourtesy and incivility in [[Britain]]. When he returned to London, after a five-year absence, he was shocked by the decline in people’s behaviour. He commented, “The rapid vanishing of [[Christianity]] from public consciousness and life, as the last fully [[Christian]] generation ages and disappears, seems to me to be a major part of it. I do not think I would have been half so shocked by the squalor and rudeness of 1990 [[Moscow]], if I had not come from a country where Christian forbearance was still well-established. If I had then been able to see the [[London]] of 2010, I would have been equally shocked.” In many respects, Peter’s book is a warning to people, as to the kind of society they can expect if they continue to reject Christian beliefs.<ref>[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'']</ref>}}

In an article entitled "Why is England Burning", the Australian Bible study site Creation Ministries International ascribed the British riots of August 2012 to a "moral and social decline" that has been "the inevitable consequence of a nation rejecting God and His Word."<ref>[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning?'']</ref>

== See also ==
*[[English Painting]]
*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man Sir John Chilcot 'wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry'.]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests.]

== Notes ==

<references/>

{{European Union}}

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

Talk:United Kingdom

2012-02-06T17:47:26Z

GeorgeLi: /* Moral Decline? */

==Name==

The Article states that Great Britain is a short form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Actually, Great Britain is the name of the largest Island in the United Kingdom, and should not be used to describe the whole country. --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 09:28, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
::the article is correct. Please look at a dictionary. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
== Title ==
'Great Britain' redirects automatically to 'United Kingdom.' This is incorrect as the two terms are not interchangeable. The former is strictly the name of the Island which comprises the Mainland of England, Scotland and Wales, whereas the United Kingdom, is the name of a country, who's territory extends over many islands, including Northern Ireland. There should be a seperate article for 'Great Britain.'

:It is true that this difference needs to be made clear in the entry -- but there seems little sense in having a separate entry for two such overlapping entities! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That's a fair point I suppose!
Consider it done : )

:::I see that "Great Britain" still redirects here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] also redirects here, which is the entity before Ireland got its independence. I put the redirect there for now to simply allow articles like [[War of 1812]] to link to other articles, but someone who knows a lot on the history of those countries should fix it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 23:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: There are now separate articles for the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (the island is at [[Great Britain]]) and the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]]. If someone has time it might be useful to have articles for pre-Union [[Kingdom of England|England]], [[Kingdom of Scotland|Scotland]] and [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]]. I think it would be useful for all of them to have a notice at the top pointing to this article as the present day successor state. [[User:Mrjimbob|Mrjimbob]] 19:34, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::: There's already articles on [[England]] and [[Scotland]] and more than one on [[Ireland]]. Do these not suit the purpose? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:44, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

==Currency==
Not changed the article text but I'm 99% sure that while English money is legal tender in Scotland, NI et al the reverse isn't true - can anyone confirm this & if so amend the article appropriately? [[User:Tracy C Copeland|Tracy C Copeland]] 13:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The paragraph, as it is, is ok and correct - you could expand it if you wanted to, but the situation's a little complex:
:*Bank of England coins are legal tender throughout the UK.
:*Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales (and possibly Channel Islands & Isle of Man).
:*Channel Islands & Isle of Man notes and coins are only legal tender those jurisdictions.
:*Scottish & NI notes aren't legal tender anywhere.
:*So no notes are legal tender in Scotland & NI at all.
:But "legal tender" doesn't really mean anything. All the forms of currency are perfectly acceptable anywhere in the UK - you'd have a hard time convincing a court that you had a right not to accept Scottish notes (for payment of debt) just because they aren't "legal tender". I got this information from [http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/faqs.htm here], [http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_7.html here] and [http://www.royalmint.com/RoyalMint/web/site/Corporate/Home/Corp_faq.asp here] --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::* The Bank of England doesn't produce coins, that's the Royal Mint.
::* Only in England and Wales does the concept of 'legal tender' exist. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not part of the UK.
::* Yes.
::* As above, Under Scots Law and Northern Irish law there is a broader concept of what is 'legal tender' as it doesn't technically exist under their law.
::* Scottish and Northern Irish notes are usually accepted thoughtout the United Kingdom, although sometimes an explanation is required.
:: [[User:Mrjimbob|Mrjimbob]] 13:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

==Anthem==
Wales is the only country of the UK to have an official national anthem. Scotland hasn't ("Flower of Scotland" is definitely not official), England hasn't, and "God Save the Queen" is not even the official anthem of the UK. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 15:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article has a superfluous "The" in the title. ==

Have no problems with the article but why is the title "'''The''' United Kingdom" rather than "United Kingdom"? After all there are not articles for "'''The''' People's Republic of China" or "'''The''' United States of America".

Perhaps someone could move the page to "United Kingdom"...? It would then be more consistent with other names, easier to search for, and easier to link to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 19:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Since "United Kingdom" redirects to "The United Kingdom" searching and linking shouldn't be a problem but I agree it should probably be changed for consistency. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Darts? ==
I live in the U.K. and last time i looked darts was not a popular sport.{{unsigned|Nick227}}
:Yes, it is. Most local pubs have a dart board with many having darts teams. A quick look at the top darts players shows the vasy majority are British. [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]
:I would agree with that. It's not as popular to watch as football or cricket or rugby, but I would guess that nearly as many people play darts in a week as play football. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:33, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Religion ==

Hey im British and im a little concerned on the whole religion thing. The table says that over 70% of people are christian which is probably true however the article doesn`t explain that most people do not go to church, no more than 2 million people in the uk still go to chuch. We also have very liberal social policies, we support science, we support gay rights (they can have civil ceromonies, join the army ,there are discrimination laws to protect them and most people now accept them), we are pro choice. The Uk is a very liberal country in comparison to the US but this table makes us sound more conservative than the US which it is not.

Politically all of the three mainstream parties are more liberal than the US democrats as the conservative party has moved to the centre left since the introduction of the human rights Act 1998. If I can source all this would it be a problem to include it? Yours --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:41, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Source and include it, please and thank you! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Government Section ==

The section on government now carries a lengthy discussion on recent developments in the politics of Northern Ireland - would this be better having its own section or moved to its own article? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:54, 21 December 2007 (EST)
: It probably should be moved to its own article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:55, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:I just did this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==England v United Kingdom==
A lot of the history in this article is really the history of England. That's a problem as we need to separate the UK from England in people's mind. We either need to write about the history of all four constituent countries (not really practical at this stage) or restrict ourselves to history of the UK after union. I suggest the latter. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Principal government officials ==

I edited this sub-section to add the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who are unquestionably principal government officials. Another editor deleted the names of these people but kept the names of two diplomats (ambassadors to the US and UN), who are comparatively minor officials.

That's a bit peculiar. Any comments before I revert that editor's edits? From a UK perspective, a list of principal government officials would include the PM, Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and probably Home Secretary. The Mayor of London and the First Minister of Scotland have a much higher public profile than any ambassador. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:00, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== A name change with no change? ==

The article now includes the following:
{{QuoteBox|The official name of the country (since 1922) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''. ... From 1801 to 1922 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.}}
I assume that one of these versions is in correct.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:48, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

:Neither is correct. Although the [[Irish Free State]] seceded in 1922, the name was not changed by Act of Parliament for another five or so years - I think 1927, but will check. Up to that point the name was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:16, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:In fact is says this in the opening paragraph. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Jedi Knights? not ==

The "Jedi Knight" response to the religion question was an organized hoax. Amusing indeed, but not an indicator of religious affiliation. see [http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.asp details] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:50, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

== Politics ==

Someone really needs to update the section that talks about the MPs, especially since so many of them are walking now.

Also (although completely unrelated), the descriptors of "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" need to be changed to show that there actually is a difference between them and that the terms are not interchangeable. I would suggest adding in a descriptor of "British Isles" as well, since that has a third meaning. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 19:56, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

== Moral Decline? ==

Can we remove this pointless section from an otherwise good article? Being British, it's quite insulting that such a baseless claim is added, with no real evidence. I actually live in Britain, and I see no evidence in moral decline. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:30, 6 February 2012 (GMT)
:I tend to agree. If people want to know what the cork hat wearers at CMI think of the UK, they can go on the CMI website. We have no need to parrot them.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Me too. I've visited a couple of times and while I wasn't impressed at all the drunkenness I saw, the UK seems to be doing pretty much fine. It certainly has a lot less crime than the USA, which is a big indicator of immorality. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 12:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)

USS Liberty

2012-02-06T16:49:44Z

GeorgeLi:

(This article is still under construction)

The AGTR-5 USS ''Liberty'' was a Belmont-class technical research ship<ref>[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/l6/liberty-iii.htm| The vessel's specification]</ref>, belonging to the [[United States Navy]]. The most notable event concerning her was the "''Liberty'' Incident." This was a series of attacks on her in international waters near the Egyptian town of [[El Arish]] on June 8 1967, during the [[Six Day War]], by [[Israel|Israeli]] fighter planes and torpedo boats. The attacks killed 34 US servicemen and wounded 173, making it the second deadliest attack against a US warship since the end of [[World War II]]. The captain of the ship, Commander [[William McGonagle]], was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] for his actions during and after the attack after the State Department had confirmed with the Israeli Embassy that Israel had no objections to the award.<ref>http://usslibertycoverup.com/</ref> The government of Israel eventually paid almost $13 million in compensation, against total US claims of around $40 million, to the U.S. government and the families of the victims.<ref>''Raid on the Sun'', by Rodger W. Claire, Random House, 2004</ref> Congress increased Israel's annual aid to cover these payments.<ref>http://www.ussliberty.org/adlai.htm</ref>

The attack is still a subject of controversy. Many people, including the surviving crewmen "to a man,"<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/eedition/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,43090.story</ref> believe that the ''Liberty'' was targeted deliberately, and that her attackers knew she was an American ship. It has also been claimed by the survivors of the attack that after launching five torpedoes at the ship the Israeli torpedo boats closed in and machine-gunned liferafts which had been launched by ''Liberty's'' crew, and that the aircraft which attacked the ship with rockets, napalm and gunfire used jamming in an attempt to prevent her sending a distress message.

Israel maintains that the attack was accidental, and that the ''Liberty'' was mistaken for an enemy vessel (either a Soviet-built destroyer, an Egyptian horse transporter half the size of the ''Liberty'' or an even smaller British-built ''Hunt''-Class destroyer, according to various IDF sources.) Prior to the first attack the ''Liberty'' was overflown eight times by Israeli reconnaissance aircraft. In the IDF official report into the incident it was acknowledged that the IDF had identified the ''Liberty'' as a US monitoring ship at least three hours before the attack, but that this information had "gotten lost."<ref>http://thelibertyincident.com/docs/israeli/IDF-history-report-en.pdf</ref> Despite this admission, an Israeli court ruled that no member of the IDF had been negligent.

==References==
<references/>

==Further Reading==
[http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/liber00010.pdf NSA investigation (warning - large (~15Mb) download)]

[[Category:Israel]]
[[Category: United States Navy]]

USS Liberty

2012-02-05T21:11:19Z

GeorgeLi:

(This article is still under construction)

The AGTR-5 USS ''Liberty'' was a Belmont-class technical research ship<ref>[http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/l6/liberty-iii.htm| The vessel's specification]</ref>, belonging to the [[United States Navy]]. The most notable event concerning her was the "''Liberty'' Incident." This was a series of attacks on her in international waters near the Egyptian town of [[El Arish]] on June 8 1967, during the [[Six Day War]], by [[Israel|Israeli]] fighter planes and torpedo boats. The attacks killed 34 US servicemen and wounded 173, making it the second deadliest attack against a US warship since the end of [[World War II]]. The captain of the ship, Commander [[William McGonagle]], was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] for his actions during and after the attack after the State Department had confirmed with the Israeli Embassy that Israel had no objections to the award.<ref>http://usslibertycoverup.com/</ref> The government of Israel eventually paid almost $13 million in compensation, against total US claims of around $40 million, to the U.S. government and the families of the victims.<ref>''Raid on the Sun'', by Rodger W. Claire, Random House, 2004</ref> Congress increased Israel's annual aid to cover these payments.<ref>http://www.ussliberty.org/adlai.htm</ref>

The attack is still a subject of controversy. Many people, including the surviving crewmen "to a man,"<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/eedition/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,43090.story</ref> believe that the ''Liberty'' was targeted deliberately, and that her attackers knew she was an American ship. Israel maintains that the attack was accidental, and that the ''Liberty'' was mistaken for an enemy vessel (either a Soviet-built destroyer, an Egyptian horse transporter half the size of the ''Liberty'' or an even smaller British-built ''Hunt''-Class destroyer, according to various IDF sources.) Prior to the first attack the ''Liberty'' was overflown eight times by Israeli reconnaissance aircraft. In the IDF official report into the incident it was acknowledged that the IDF had identified the ''Liberty'' as a US monitoring ship at least three hours before the attack, but that this information had "gotten lost."<ref>http://thelibertyincident.com/docs/israeli/IDF-history-report-en.pdf</ref> Despite this admission, an Israeli court ruled that no member of the IDF had been negligent.

==References==
<references/>

==Further Reading==
[http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/liber00010.pdf NSA investigation (warning - large (~15Mb) download)]

[[Category:Israel]]
[[Category: United States Navy]]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2012-02-04T19:43:25Z

GeorgeLi: /* British political parties misrepresented on Wikipedia */

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]==
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Sorry if this isn't the correct way to get a debate added, but it seems the only way I can spot, not sure where the best place would be for it? [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST) in time

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

:If you are referring in part to the Bush Presidents, I'm afraid you are mis-informed. Neither George H.W. Bush nor George W. Bush could be considered a "Texan" in the sense that they were born in Texas. Both were born in New England, the first in Massachusetts, the second in Connecticut. While it is true that George W. Bush spent much of his childhood in Texas, he also attended Phillips Academy, which is in Andover, MA, and is the same school his father attended, and both are alumni of Yale. Whatever disagreements you may have with their policies, you cannot blame that on "the mentality of Texans." You could just as easily blame it on East Coast Elitism. Or better yet, lay it at the feet of the men who actually made those decisions, not where they came from, or where they went to school.[[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 13:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?]]==
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Add: Conservapedia:There is no [[Fossil fuel]] or [[Peak oil]]==
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will [[Peak oil|peak]]. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research [[abiotic oil]] (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Locked forever?==

Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.

STATS:

40 new users
35 bans
3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.

That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my ''righting'' back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...really scared! :p Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Why do we need debate topics? ==

This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.

:so people can argue their points obviously-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
:So you can flame them back?[[User talk:Faizaguo|Flame.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive==

Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Oops==
Alright, I admit it... I mistakenly thought I was improving two questions under the Philosophical Debate questions heading, and I know I broke some links. What can I do to fix this? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Ah! I think I've got it! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Why We Should Remove New Hampshire ==

As you know, the American government has accumulated a huge national debt, and they are having a bit of trouble getting rid of it. Getting rid of $8 trillion can be a bit tricky, so they are asking American citizens to come up with ways to help eliminate it. Of course I, like the helpful guy that I am, have come up with the perfect option: Let’s get rid of New Hampshire.

Why New Hampshire? It’s quite easy. New Hampshire has nothing special about it. Not since Old Man in the Mountain collapsed. I mean, it doesn’t have a professional sports team, it has no important colleges, and it’s really small, too. Only 1.2 million people live on 9350 square miles. We could easily get rid of this and no one would care!

Here’s how it happens: First, the government reclaims New Hampshire from private citizens with that wonderful eminent domain power that they have, give the citizens a couple hundred bucks to keep them happy, and then sell the land to another country. It doesn’t matter which one, we’re trying to save America here. Canada comes to mind. They’re already the second-biggest country in the world, so they wouldn’t mind having a nice patch of land south of the Great Lakes. Mexico could be fun. We’d have people complaining of the hundreds of illegal immigrants coming from “East of the border”. Heck, I’d bet Iran or North Korea wouldn’t mind having a small patch of land right next to America. I’d bet they’d be willing to pay top dollar!

Now, let’s get back to actually selling the place. The average price per acre of land in New England is $528,000. If we multiply that by the 2.2 million acres of land in New Hampshire, we’d get over a quadrillion dollars! Not only would we be out of debt, we’d be in in the black! We might even be able to spend a few more years in Iraq without bankrupting the country if we did this!

Hey, here’s another reason: New Hampshire is a bigger money pit than the educational system! New Hampshire spends over $2 billion a year. They also have the second-lowest tax burden in the country! So can you tell me why these people spend so much money with almost no taxes? In addition to that, New Hampshire has the highest per capita sales of alcohol in the country! And speaking of education, New Hampshire doesn’t publicly fund kindergarten! They don’t care about our children and their education! The only thing that they care about is filling their wallets with money and their hip flasks with bourbon. New Hampshirian-ites have the highest per capita income in the country, and none of it is taxed! These greedy, drunken, corrupt, penny-pinching misers deserve to be gotten rid of!

There are political reasons, too. For almost its entire history, God’s chosen political party has governed New Hampshire, but as a result of current trends, New Hampshire is now being ruled… by the left! How terrifying is that? I mean, liberals have wasted enough of this country’s money on health care and alternative energy; can you imagine what it would be like if one more state was ruled by these pagan tax-and-spenders? If we sell New Hampshire, these horrible people will be able to go back to those terrible states that spawned them: California, New York, and Minnesota.

Now, I can tell some of you are squeamish about this idea. You might say that it would cost too much to get rid of New Hampshire. You might say we’d have to redesign the flag to accompany the loss of one state. Surely you jest. Not many people know this, but Texas has a special amendment in its constitution that allows it to split into as many as five separate states if needed. So, after we sell New Hampshire, we can simply split up Texas into two separate states: South Texas and Souther Texas. It would be clean, easy, and efficient.
Besides, if you still think it would cost too much, remember that in 2004, the federal government passed a bill that set aside $25,000 to be spent on researching mariachi music. I think that pretty much proves that this country can afford anything.

Now, my reasons to get rid of New Hampshire are quite clear: New Hampshire is worth a lot of money, incredibly small, and is losing money faster than the Automotive industry. It has no reason to exist, so it shouldn’t. And remember, if you don’t think that we should eliminate America’s national debt quickly and efficiently, it can only mean one thing: you hate America. Thank you and have a nice day.

[[REquest to add Debate Topic: Faith or Morality: Which is more important?]]

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Should we end Medicare?]]==
With the current healthcare debate and alleged waste, this could be a good topic. [[User:CMcFreeze|CMcFreeze]] 19:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal?]] ==

I'd like to see a debate like this. I mean, if the Christian right want to ban the choice abortion because it's against The Bible, then shouldn't it be mandatory to participate in government programs to help the poor? [[User:NP|NP]] 18:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

: Don't follow your reasoning there. The Bible doesn't support taxation or forced redistribution of wealth. It does have numerous explicit references to how a person exists as a full human being, one even capable of sinning, while still in his mother's womb.

: More generally, wouldn't your proposed debate topic be better address ''after'' we translate the Bible, rather than before?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::Then shouldn't abortion (not that I am for it) be a choice, then, if giving to the poor is a choice? [[User:NP|NP]] 18:52, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::Could anyone respond to the above question? @Aschlafly That would be a better idea. [[User:NP|NP]] 20:18, 16 December 2009 (EST)

::::NP, I see no logic in your comment. I urge you to spend time translating the most logical book of all-time, the Bible. It works wonders for all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You seem to be confused NP, you see Big Gov. telling us what we can and cant do is bad. Unless what the gov. is saying coincides with the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. That is why its ok to ban abortions and gay marriage but its wrong to impose gun control or raise taxes. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 10:12, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::There is no logic in that comment either. Like my suggestion for NP, Like my suggestion for NP, I urge you (Jaiken) to give the Bible equal time, or even 5% of your time. Reading a logical book does wonders for all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Not only did I read the bible cover to cover in High School, I also attend bible discussion groups at my parish once a week. I am no stranger to how wonderful of a book it is. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 10:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::We hear that often about the Bible: "oh, I read it growing up!" Do people say the same thing about eating vegetables, or physical exercise? Of course not. It's what we do each day and each week that counts. Former professional athletes are in some of the worst physical shape today of anyone, for example, because they mistakenly rely on the exercise they did long ago.

::::::::As to Bible discussion groups, they almost never translate the Bible and can be useless in even reading it, unfortunately. Chit-chat is no substitute for dissecting and grasping the logic of the Bible in an intellectual way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

There already is a debate like this, see [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:28, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== British political parties misrepresented on Wikipedia ==

Please see my talk page (HenriettaVanLaer)where I have described the recent experience I have of the dreadful bias of Wikipedia. It is simply not an encyclopedia. It is a propaganda tool for socialists, greens and gays. My attempts to inject a tiny bit of fact into their fantasies were firmly censored. I am interested to hear what other users of Conservapedia think. Maybe some of my material would be of interest in your own articles on these topics.

I am also interested to note that you are debating whether there is any successful Muslim democracy. I attempted to raise this question during the recent British election campaign and was treated like a leper!! My own view is that so far, there isn't one and this is a sign we would be foolish to ignore. Such a view is not acceptable to the liberal-left-wing-dominated media which controls discussion most of the time.[[User:HenriettaVanLaer|HenriettaVanLaer]] 11:47, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
:Turkey. It's technically a secular state but with a 99% muslim population that doesn't mean much. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 14:43, 4 February 2012 (EST)

== America was founded by religious extremists? ==

Discuss.

== Debate Suggestion:Can translating the Bible give you more insight? ==

What do you think? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 22:26, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

== Debate suggestion: Do genuinely saved Christians sin? ==

I'd like to see a new debate topic added: [[Debate:Do genuinely saved Christians sin?]]. This was recently a source of disagreement between me and another editor, although only one of us backed up his position with Scripture. Thanks. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:22, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
:Done. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:21, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

== Debate Request ==

I'm slightly amused by the process so I'm curious about opinions...

"Do political endorsements actually carry any weight?" [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 23:30, 10 January 2012 (EST)

User:JamesWilson/McDonald's

2012-02-04T03:19:31Z

GeorgeLi:

[[File:Mcdonalds-logo.png|right]]
'''McDonald's''' is a global fast-food chain specializing in [[hamburger|hamburgers]]. It operates more than 30,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries on 6 continents.<ref>http://www.supersizeme.com/home.aspx?page=bythelb</ref> Although the first McDonald's was opened in [[California]] in 1940 by the McDonald brothers, the first [[franchise]] under the corporation as it exists today was opened by [[Ray Kroc]] in [[Illinois]] in 1955. The company is headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois.
==History==
Richard and Maurice McDonald opened McDonald's Bar-B-Que in San Bernardino, California. It was a typical drive-in featuring a vast menu and carhops. In 1948, the McDonald brothers shut down the restaurant for three months for alterations. They remade it into a self-service restaurant featuring only a few menu items: Hamburgers and cheeseburgers, soda, milkshakes, coffee, potato chips, and pie, with the core staple being the 15 cent hamburger.
==Criticism==
McDonald's has often been accused of knowingly selling unhealthy food<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=yNFN1OpnkBkC&dq=fast+food+nation&pg=PP1&ots=l_kkxv7x65&sig=M0lMjzxa92mnxMp4CXMS3VaYpLk&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dfast%2Bfood%2Bnation%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPA2,M1 Fast Food Nation]</ref>. McDonald's states that health is not only an issue of food but also of a balanced active lifestyle. McDonald's sponsors many events that promote active physical behavior, such as The Olympic Games.<ref>[http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat.html McDonald's Corporate website]</ref>; this is why many McDonald's restaurants have a jungle gym for the children to play in and be active. McDonald's also sells salads and water, two healthy food items, breakfast foods such as oatmeal, and several drinks that are artificially flavored to taste like fruit. The "[[schlockumentary]]" ''[[Super Size Me]]'' aimed at proving that McDonald's had no interest in healthy customers whatsoever.<ref>[http://www.supersizeme.com/ Super Size Me]</ref>

=== McLibel Trial ===
In 1990, McDonald's sued for [[libel]] several members of Greenpeace London (an organization which at the time of the incident was no longer connected with Greenpeace), who had been writing and distributing leaflets criticizing McDonald's. Of the five defendants, three repented due to lack of money for legal costs. The remaining two, [[Helen Steel]] and [[Dave Morris]], decided to take the case to court in 1994 with [[pro bono]] legal representation and public donations. This became known as the [[McLibel]] Trial. On day 102 in court - March 13, 1995 - McLibel became the longest ever UK libel trial, beating the previous record of 101 days in the Daily Mail vs The Moonies (1982). On December 11, 1995, it became the longest civil case (as opposed to criminal) in British history.
On November 1, 1996 (court day 292), McLibel became the longest trial of any kind in English history.

On June 19, 1997, Mr. Justice Bell took two hours to read his summary. He ruled that Steel and Morris had not proved the allegations against McDonald's on rainforest destruction, heart disease and cancer, food poisoning, starvation in the Third World and bad working conditions. But they had proved that McDonald's "exploit children" with their advertising, falsely advertise their food as nutritious, risk the health of their most regular, long-term customers, are "culpably responsible" for cruelty to animals, are "strongly antipathetic" to unions and pay their workers low wages.

The Judge ruled that Steel and Morris had libeled McDonald's, but as they had proved many of the allegations, they would only owe half of the claimed damages: £60,000.

=== Support for [[homosexual]] agenda ===

In March of 2008, Richard Ellis, McDonald's vice president of communications, joined the board of directors of a pro gay-rights organization, the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.<ref>[http://outandaboutnewspaper.com/article.php?id=2470 "National gay chamber adds McDonald’s corporation officer to board." ''Out and About'' March 13, 2008.]</ref> Ellis states:

<blockquote>
I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work. <ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=27747 Erin Roach. "McDonald's gives support to homosexual activists' agenda." ''Baptist Press'' April 3, 2008]</ref>
</blockquote>

McDonald's thus joins other large American corporations, such as [[Wal-Mart]]<ref>[http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/08/21/4 "Walmart launches gay-friendly initiative" August 21, 2006]</ref>, in actively backing admitted homosexual organizations and their agendas.

A boycott by the [[AFA]] ended on October 9th, 2008 when McDonald's chose to take a neutral position on gay issues. However, in 2010, McDonald's once again demonstrated active support for homosexuality as part of their "Come As You Are" campaign, airing a commercial in France which features a young customer talking on the phone to his lover. At the end of the commercial, the young man is revealed to be gay. <ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/04/2010-06-04_gay_mcdonalds_ad_airing_in_france_evokes_strong_reactions_around_the_world_over_.html</ref>
===''Super Size Me''===
''Super Size Me'' is a schlockumentary by liberal filmmaker Morgan Spurlock. The film is meant to criticize the fast food industry, with a special focus on McDonald's. Spurlock decides to go on a diet in which he would eat and drink items that came from McDonald's for thirty days. He had doctors check him before the experiment, and they said he was in excellent health.

Spurlock did this because he had said that McDonald's claimed their food could be integrated into a healthy diet. Spurlock ate three full meals from McDonald's for a month, eating each menu item at least once. He was to super size his meal only when asked by the cashier. He also greatly decreased his excercise regimen, to be on par with the average McDonald's consumer. Toward the end of his experiment, his doctors urgently advised him to quit to save his health and possibly his life.

After a month, Spurlock had significant weight gain, an increase in cholesterol, and fatty liver. McDonald's took the Super Size option off their menu, though they claim it was not a result of the film.

== Regionalization ==
McDonald's outlets outside of the US often have different menu items, and the formulations of some products may vary. For example, McDonald's sells rice in many Asian countries, and McDonald's [[Australia]] sells a wider range of 'healthy' foods, such as wraps with poached chicken, and has smaller portion sizes.

==Menu==
McDonald's original menu when the Speedy Service System was adopted was simply hamburgers, chips, soda, and milkshakes.

Today, McDonald's has a largely meat-and-potatoes diet, with sandwiches such as the McDouble (two hamburger patties with cheese, onions, seasonings, and pickle) the Big Mac (a larger burger with two patties three buns, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, onions, and a special sauce) the Quarter Pounder and the Double Quarter Pounder, the Big n' Tasty, the McChicken (fried chicken sandwich with mayonaise and lettuce) the Filet o' Fish (fish with tartar sauce), and others. There are also various sizes of French gries, sodas, milkshakes (strawberry, vanilla, chocolate, various seasonal shakes such as Mint and egg nog), ice cream and sundaes. In recent years, healthier options have been added such as premium salads, parfaits, Snack Wraps, and apples.

==Employment==

==See also==
[[McDonaldization]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.mcdonalds.com/ Company website]
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Dinosaur

2012-02-04T03:03:01Z

GeorgeLi: /* Loch Ness Should Be Removed */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]|
[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2]] 



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? [[User:50something|50something]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
:There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "[[baramin|kinds]]", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
:The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
:One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Let me say 1st off like most peolple with any basic background in molecular biology, I beleive in evolution. I'm not trying to hide my view point, but I'm not trying to cause arguments for the sake of it either . I'm just curious on this view point, is there any scientific evidance (even speculative evidance ie. based on tooth shape etc.) to support the view point that all Dinosaurs were herbavoirs, or is it just that the bible indirectlty implies it ( all animals came to be about the same time and there was no death before sin, therefore dinosaurs only ate plants? I'm I correct that this is the reasoning? Though not to be too technical, plants and bacteria are alive too. If they ate these there would be death too (unless they ate only from larger plants ie. only the leaves off the tress but never grass for example.)
-Damien Rivers
: The Bible doesn't merely imply it. It says that plants were to be food for the animals and humans. As for evidence, it's probably more of a lack of conclusive evidence for the evolutionary view. Some creatures classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth don't eat meat! The fruit bat is one example. Further, many carnivores can survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. Also, there are examples of closely-related species in which one is herbivorous and the other is carnivorous. We also have examples of herbivores (e.g. sheep) eating meat on occasion. So there is considerable evidence that originally-herbivorous creatures becoming carnivorous is quite plausible, and so really nothing in science to refute the biblical claim of the animals ''originally'' being herbivorous.
: As far as plants and bacteria being alive is concerned, see [[classification system]] and realise that it depends on your definition. The modern scientific definition is that they are alive, but the biblical definition is that they are not. The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::...which is part of why I'm skeptical of Biblical inerrantism, Philip. I find it difficult to imagine anyone using that as their definition, and I find it extremely difficult to imagine that it's the definition God intended us to employ. There are, after all, a great many creatures other than plants and bacteria which do ''not'' breathe air through their nostrils.

::Biblical exegesis is well and good, but I think too many people place too much faith in the ability of modern man to accurately and faithfully analyze linguistic nuance. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Umm, yeah? What does that have to do with inerrancy? As the article on [[classification system]]s points out, "some systems may be better, or more useful than others, ''especially for a given purpose''" (emphasis altered). The point is, the Bible had a ''different'' purpose than modern science. The Bible's classification system wasn't intended for scientific use. Beyond that, your response amounts to saying, "I can't see how that would be useful, so the Bible must be wrong.", which makes your lack of imagination the benchmark for deciding biblical accuracy! What arrogance! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not at all. My response amounts to "When an assertion is made concerning the original meaning of the Bible, and when this assertion conflicts with observed evidence, it is likely that the assertion is in error." I must confess to not even being sure of which passage you're referring to, as the only passage I can think of offhand that mentions the breath of life in conjunction with the nostrils is Genesis 7:22--and no translation of Genesis 7:22 I have ever read makes "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." a benchmark for all that is living. In fact, it immediately links that qualifier to "...of all that was in the dry land." (There's also Genesis 2:7, but that's referring exclusively to Adam, so I can't imagine it's the basis of your claim.) If there is another line I'm overlooking elsewhere, please feel free to point it out; while I study the Bible, I do not claim to have it committed perfectly to memory, and it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking the line on which you base your argument.

::::Moreover, I can observe that the definition you offered ("The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.") seems rather strongly at odds with Genesis 1:20, which establishes that the creatures brought forth from the water had life. You could add the qualifier that this only applies to creatures on dry land, as per Genesis 7:22, but as I already pointed out, Genesis 7:22 does not establish that only those creatures that had the breath of life in their nostrils were alive; merely that the ones who did and were on dry land all died. It would be possible to argue that "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is in the poetic mode, and meant to refer to a broader range of respiration than strictly the nostrils, but that would also undermine the definition offered.

:::: Is my skepticism when someone says "The Bible says..." or "The Biblical definition is..." arrogance? Perhaps. I think it would be far more arrogant if I were to assume that current scholarship has so successfully captured the nuance and idiom of the autographic texts that no significant errors of understanding remain.

:::: I have faith in God. I know, however, how difficult it is to perfectly render an author's original intent even when you share the author's language, culture, and frame of reference. I would greet ''any'' claim by any scholar that they perfectly comprehended the idiom and tropes of a writer two thousand years dead with healthy skepticism. I know that some advance the argument that it is God's Word, and therefore, He will ensure understanding--but, again, that claim conflicts with what has been observed throughout history. Men...even saintly men...are capable of misunderstanding God's Word, and so coming to wrong conclusions about the world around them. God has not prevented this from happening, so it would be arrogant indeed to presume that He will do so now.

:::: If you want to argue that the writers of the Bible did not consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals, I completely agree; I take no issue with that part of your statement. Certainly, they didn't consider bacteria to be alive...it's extremely unlikely that they considered bacteria at all (I suppose it's possible that God revealed the existence of bacteria to them, but it seems pretty doubtful.) However, I disagree that the Bible defines living things as those that breathe air through their nostrils. I think a stronger case could be made for mobility, and even THAT is not offered as an exclusive definition. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

''NB: Following a request from Benp to move this discussion to another page, I have replied to him on [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment#Dinosaur discussion continuation|my talk page]]''.

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Adaptation and evolution ==
(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section. The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there. However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'm going to have to disagree with DavidR on a couple of his points, but then I will address the more substantial problems with Entheogenicorder's posts.

Leading creationists recommend that we ''don't'' talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is. The real problem is the ''type'' (or ''direction'') of change, not the ''size'' of the change.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a ''fact''. In science, the word "theory" does ''not'' imply something uncertain.

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

"''Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing''": As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one [[Definitions of evolution|defines evolution]] (read that). Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but microbe-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

"''If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.''", "''Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?''": I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He [[creation Week|''clearly'' told us that He created the world in six days]] (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

"''...accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof.''": No, we are accepting what God has clearly said about the ''history'' of this world over ''man-made'' theories by ''scientists'' trying to give us an alternative ''history''. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about ''history'').

"''[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today''": First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall. He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as ''the'' explanation, but it is a ''possible'' explanation. Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores. Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous—there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/279/] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

"''I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!''": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved? I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:If that is your take of things, I don't see why you have any problem with what I said. You may have misread my post, but I did not say anything about the ''size'' of an evolutionary change. Furthermore, I do not think microevolution takes size into consideration, rather it is influenced by type, as you stated. If you think that microevolution is change ''within'' a species, I cannot disagree. Also, you assume I think scientists who interpret the Theory of Evolution as scientific law are thinking clearly; I don't. In addition, a theory ''may'' not be something un''certain'', but it is certainly something un''proven''. That is all. I hope I cleared things up. :\ --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 22:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::I don't think you understand what a theory is-- It's not an unfounded guess. It's the closest you get to "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY TRUE" in science. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:: DavidR, I apologise for not being careful enough in my post. It's not that you said anything explicit about the size of the change, but size is what is implied in talking about ''micro''evolution vs. ''macro''evolution. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what people will likely understand from the user of those terms. It's not a matter of what I think microevolution is. The term is imprecise.
:: Nothing in science is considered ''proven'', so prepending "theory" to it does not downgrade it at all.
:: In case ''I'' need to clear anything up, I was disagreeing with you on those two points only; overall, I agreed with you.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this.

:::“''I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He clearly told us that He created the world in six days (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said''” God has not clearly said anything to me, has He told you in person? What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old and has been endlessly translated from one language to another. It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations. For example, it is widely accepted that Roman historical records prove the existence of Jesus at roughly the same time as we base our calendar around. Therefore, from studying similar Roman records from a later date, it should be considered that some time later, as is historically recorded, Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held. Therefore – for me – it is very difficult to be sure exactly what God told us. Please also see below.

:::“''We are accepting what God has clearly said about the history of this world over man-made theories by scientists trying to give us an alternative history. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about history).” '' I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said, not what God has directly said to you (unless he has?). The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes, especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’. In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical, not a popular view here I imagine but that is my understanding of it. For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years, representing levels of development and culminating in our evolution. With regards to your second point, because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields? You may argue that Religion covers all aspects of life, but a Physicist will probable tell you that so does Physics, and I would argue that so does Philosophy.

:::If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible, I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc, if it had also to be filled with dinosaurs. I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all for 40 days and 40 nights, especially if you take into account that the animals would have needed fresh food, fresh water, fresh hay to sleep on and of course, room to exercise.

:::“''Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on an herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores.”'' The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge. In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’. Carnivores have no mechanism for this. I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!

:::On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before any human – or mammal – remains have been found. This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong. I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:23, 1 February 2008 (BWT)

:::: I see that you've been doing what Andy refers to as [[liberal deceit]]. You make out that you believe at least some of the Bible ("I was brought up with ... the morals as taught by Christ", and "DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything"), now show your true colours, in that you don't think the Bible is reliable enough to take any notice of!
:::: "''God has not clearly said anything to me...''": He has, in the Bible, whether you choose to accept that or not.
:::: "''What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old ...''": Which is consistent with it being written at the time the events happened, which makes it more reliable than something written much later. So that's a ''good'' thing. Strike 1.
:::: "''...and has been endlessly translated from one language to another''": Incorrect, in the sense that you are implying. Modern English translations of the Bible have been translated ''directly'' from the original languages. Again, that supports the idea that it is accurate. Strike 2.
:::: "''It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations.''": You can "conceive" anything you want with a vivid enough imagination, but the ''evidence'' is that the manuscripts have been handed down ''accurately''. Strike 3; you're out.
:::: "''...Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held''": There's your imagination running away again. The evidence is otherwise.
:::: "''I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said...''": Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?
:::: "''The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes...''": Perhaps your difficulty stems from trying to read the literal as metaphorical. Or else you simply know little about making such distinctions. But your inability to do this does not give you ''carte blanche'' to pick and choose what to believe. The experts agree, for example, that the creation account was meant to be understood literally. The language is not that of metaphor. An example of metaphor is elsewhere in the Old Testament where is says that the trees clapped their hands.
:::: "''...especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’.''": Examples please?
:::: "''In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical...For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years.''": Well, you are wrong, as mentioned above, and as the link to [[Creation Week]] above explains. Did you read that?
:::: "''...because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields?''": Oh dear, another lack of comprehension. I wasn't talking about ''discussing'' multiple fields, but speaking ''authoritatively'' about them. Those scientists can discuss ''history'' as much as they like, but they have no more ''authority'' on the subject than me, and I'm not claiming any. I'm quoting other authorities and offering evidence, not claiming that I'm an authority. You can quote other scientists' arguments as much as you like, but the case stands or falls on the strength of their arguments, not their authority, because when it comes to ''history'', they have none.
:::: "''If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible...''": I don't. I accept that there are parables, metaphors, etc. in the Bible. But the Flood account is history, so...
:::: "''I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc...''": ''Proposed'' size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?
:::: "''I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all...''": Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)
:::: "''...for 40 days and 40 nights...''": Showing your ignorance again? The Bible records that they were on the ark for just over a year.
:::: "''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.''": Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary.
:::: "''In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’''": What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat. Which means that a carnivore would have problems eating vegetable matter, but a herbivore would not have the same problems eating meat. Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.
:::: "''Carnivores have no mechanism for this''": Yet some carnivores survive quite satisfactorily on a herbivorous diet.
:::: "''I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!''": There's been recent accounts of them doing so.
:::: "''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago...''": No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence.
:::: "''This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.''": No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.
:::: "''I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth.''": See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here]. I wouldn't normally direct you to an entire web-site for an answer to a specific question, but in your case, you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Admittedly I thought I was clearer at the start in saying that despite being brought up as a Christian, I do not follow the Religion in any institutionalized sense. I would like to point out that it was not a case of me consciously practising [[liberal deceit]]. I was brought up a Christian and I do believe that to deny the true nature of the universe is to take something away from the idea of God. I do believe in what the Bible has to say about loving your brother, equality among all men and many of the other important lessons which are put together into stories. My point here was to ask you to examine your own beliefs and for me to examine my own. As [[Socrates]] once said ‘a life unexamined is a life not worth living.’

:::::From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis, and for a large part it depends on their religious orientation. Many understand the main creation story literally, but others don’t. A small group of Christians, apparently known as '[[Progressive Creationists]]' have spoken to me about the 6-days of creation existing in a metaphorical sense, and this is where much of my confusion arises; if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page. What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities! I can understand the points in the [[Creation Week]] link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God, but my point is about the writing down of the Bible; it may be just my curious nature to question everything, but I would question; would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being? Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do? With regards to the reference to morning and evening; if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference? And even though it is partially covered in the [[Creation Week]] link, could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules and often with revelatory texts, seeks to break with tradition.

:::::You may believe that God spoke to you through The Bible and I may believe that he has, but I may also believe that Buddha has passed on some of his enlightened wisdom in his texts when he says; ‘do not believe on the faith of Sages of the past’. My point was that Moses (and others) traditionally wrote much of the Old Testament, and Moses was a man. Men often create or imagine figures of God or ideas of Spirituality in order to persuade themselves that they are inspired by a higher power. They also create ideas in order to manipulate groups of people into abiding by their will. Men are also often wrong. Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God, even if you believe that the Bible is exactly what Moses (etc.) said and wrote. As you well know, the first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Pentateuch". Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5. I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.

:::::My small point about translation (your Strike 1, 2 & 3) was questioning – as you point out the language is quite loose; ‘isn’t it conceivable that…over thousands of years’ etc. If you read the King James Version, it is most likely that you have as accurate version as possible. As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past, we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is. To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian, scientist, philosopher or anything, so even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.

:::::''Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?'' Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. I wrote, directly from me, that ‘Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible.’ You could only use this argument if I had said it to another person, who had then written it down and conveyed it to you. As I am saying it directly to you, there is less scope for my meaning to be lost. If I said it to an acquaintance of mine, who then thought about it and then passed it on to you, he may not convey my entire message. He may give you the gist of it, but not all of the intricate details, he may wish to elaborate on it, or even change some of the ideas if he couldn’t understand them, or he may even include his own ideas. So you see the difference I’m trying to establish; if God spoke to you in the same way he did Moses, then you would know that what he had said to you was the authentic Word of God, although there’s a fair chance you’d be called a maniac for preaching it. If God says something to Moses, who then writes it into stories and commentaries, or passes them on through generations of oral story telling as is argued by some scholars, then some of His meaning might be lost, confused, misinterpreted etc.

:::::''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.” Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary… What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat… …Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.”'' Firstly, it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence. I provided a brief summation of characteristics usually associated with herbivores, I didn’t mean to over-generalize because obviously there are some exceptions, but many dinosaur fossils found display the same attributes, for example, as elephants do, for grinding the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells. There are also obvious examples of dinosaurs whose physiology is generally geared towards hunting. Secondly, theoretically this is so, but moreover I was trying to examine the differences there can be between herbivores and carnivores. I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.

:::::''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago…” : No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence…” …this idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.: No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.”'' I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods. If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating, which have been used to accurately measure the ages of various buildings and relics around the world then please, let me know, but don’t try and discredit what I’m saying by using the evolutionary theory argument, because that is not relevant here. Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen [http://www.s8int.com/edom.html here], however when it is used to prove the age of the dinosaurs is millions of years, it is repudiated, often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’ or ‘the methods are inaccurate’, though most leading scientists maintain that these claims are [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html unfounded]. Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know. It is the dating techniques using ‘rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years’ to which I am referring.

::::: ''Proposed size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?'' No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better. 300 x 50 x 30 cubits could have meant anything to me; I thought maybe you could provide me with a useful answer of how big that would be in terms of commonly used measurements today, rather than attack the wording and theory of my question. Please also do not accuse me of readily dismissing anything; it is with some consideration and a desire for truth that I look beyond what I have been taught. Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!

:::::''You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough...'' Being English I love a good bit of sarcasm and that was pretty tasty! It was a sweeping generalization admittedly, but the reason for the ambiguity in figures is that as you can see above, I had no idea how big the stated size of the ark actually meant it was, and also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation, or a more general division.

:::::''I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.'' Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view. I can accept that some of the things I have written are probably wrong, and others have been phrased badly. I hope you can as well. My original post here had no real agenda, and this has now developed very much into a two person discusion of providing counter-arguments for each other without getting far. Whilst I have found it useful and also very interesting, I had hoped to find more of a discussion with a lot more theoretical and philosophical musings. I find it very frustrating that we, as humans, unconditionally rely on unproven science and theoretical history to prove our own points, whilst dismissing other science because it is only theoretical. That is the very point of science, and the very nature of it since Aristotle first set out a logical way of thinking. You observe, predict, then experiment and adjust; it is an ongoing process of refining and defining. Once you have created a theory, as a scientist the very first thing you should do is to examine it under the conditions it is most likely to be proved false. That is science; it doesn’t claim to know the ultimate answers, just guide you towards what’s right. While this is completely off-topic again, I found it very [http://members.aol.com/projbin/plerdyn.htm interesting]. I hope you don't find my points or arguments offensive because they aren't meant to be. As I have said before, my purpose here is understanding, hoping both to be understood and to understand. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:57, 5 February 2008 (BWT)

::::::"''From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis''": It depends on what "experts" you are referring to. There are many who claim to know what it means, but have little claim to the title "expert". The experts I was referring to were the ones mentioned in the Barr quote in [[Creation Week]]: professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities. According to Barr, they are all agree on the meaning of the text, that it was six ordinary days.
::::::"''...for a large part it depends on their religious orientation.''": For many of the so-called "experts", probably true. But the experts that Barr was quoting would not, for the most part, believe the account to be literally true. Barr himself is theologically liberal, I believe, but he is explaining what the text is saying, even though he doesn't believe that to be a true and accurate account.
::::::"''...if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page''": In that sense, your confusion is understandable. But you need to go beyond just noting that different groups have different beliefs and see how good their arguments are.
::::::"''What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities!''": That's being unkind (ascribing to them the motive of beleiving what suits them). Most non-fiction texts are literal peppered with metaphors. Take a newspaper, for example. You are meant to understand the news as literal events, but even that newspaper will include metaphors in the text, as metaphors are a normal everyday part of language. So there's nothing odd about the Bible being that way. Also, metaphors are discernable by the context. If the newspaper said that so-and-so had passed away after a heart attack, you know that "passed away" is a metaphor for "died", and you have no reason to wonder if "heart attack" is literal or metaphorical. Acknowledging that the Bible contains metaphor is not an argument of convenience, but a simple recognition of the nature of the text.
::::::"''I can understand the points in the Creation Week link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God...''": You don't need to do that, for most of them at least. The points are mostly to do with understanding the language.
::::::"''...would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being?''": Surely a perfect and omnipotent (and omniscient) being would have the capability of describing things in a way that Moses could understand?
::::::"''...Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do?''": Wouldn't God use language that Moses understood? Besides, from what we understand of God, He doesn't experience day and night: That is something that He created as part of His creation, so He would ''have to be'' talking about earthly days, not any other ones.
::::::"''...if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference?''": Why? Why explain the meaning of words to people who already understand the language?
::::::"''...could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules ...''": In order for something to be called "poetry", it has to follow ''some'' rules, else you could call any text poetry. Sure, the rules might differ in different cultures and at different times in history, but there's still got to be rules. There's no point proposing that a text is poetry without having some reason for doing so, and I don't consider a desire to not take the text literally to be such a reason.
::::::"'''Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God...''": I can be sure. That is, I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence of God's ultimate authorship of it to be convinced of that. You, of course, may not be so convinced. Some will never be convinced, because they will refuse to believe no matter what. But this is not the place to get into the evidence for that.
::::::"''Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5.''": I would not be the first nor the last time that someone has written of themselves in the third person. And it's more than tradition that it was written by Moses, including Jesus Himself testifying to that. Of course that doesn't mean that a later person (e.g. Joshua) didn't append an epilogue to it to record Moses' death, so that fact is not reason to reject Moses' authorship.
::::::"''I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.''": I also find Christians to be somewhat inconsistent like that, but I also find many sceptics, such as yourself, using loaded language, such as referring to people who believe the Bible as "Christians" and those who question it as "scholars". It is nonsense like this, along with many stupid and inconsistent arguments against the Bible, that causes sceptics to have little credibility even with Christians who are more open to examining critical views. A classic example is Thomas Paine using the very point that you used about Deuteronomy recording Moses' death meaning that Moses could not have written the book, yet he acknowledged in his own book that a previous edition ''contained something that he had not himself written''! Did he therefore reject his own authorship of his book? Or acknowledge that he was inconsistent in denying Mosaic authorship? Of course not. When it comes to criticising the Bible, very often anything goes, including inconsistency.
::::::"''As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past...''": So I guess you don't know when you were born?
::::::"''...we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is''": We can "know" what happened about as well as we can know anything. How do I know that man has been to the moon (which happened in my lifetime)? Because I saw evidence and heard that it happened from people I considered to be reliable. How do I know what happened during World War II (which happened before I was born)? The same answer. How do I know what happened 2000 years ago? The same answer. Sure, for much of history the evidence is quite scant, and so we can't be sure, but that's not true all the time, so in many cases we can be as sure of it as we can be of almost anything.
::::::"''To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian...''": Not true. If the evidence is scant, a historian may not have much to go on, but it ''is'' his area of authority.
::::::"''...even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.''": Because words in two different languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence, this is inevitable in a sense. But given the number of different experts (translators, etc.) who have studied this, the worst that can be said is that the English translations don't 100% convey every subtlety of the original languages. But that's a whole lot different to claiming that there is any substantial change that has occurred, and to therefore questioning the veracity of the Bible.
::::::"''Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. (rest snipped)''": The problem with your rebuttal is that it is a straw-man argument. If you wrote something down and gave it to your friend, and your friend carefully rewrote it verbatim and passed it on to me, there is no more chance of misunderstanding arising than if you had written it and given it directly to me. So my argument was not logically flawed. What you probably assumed before but have now stated explicitly is that the Bible was passed down by oral tradition. There's two problems with this. One is that the people at the time were quite practiced at accurately passing things on orally, as that was a common way of passing on information. The second problem is that I know of no reason why the Bible was ever passed on orally, and believe that it was always written down.
::::::"''...it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence.''": If you didn't offer evidence, it would have been an ''unsubstantiated assertion'', but providing evidence doesn't mean that it wasn't an assertion.
::::::"''I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.''": I don't see your point. I'm not claiming that all dinosaurs were carnivorous. God created creatures herbivorous. Some time later, some started eating meat (which, because of the reduced digestive requirements, should not pose any problems). As far as catching the meat is concerned, some creatures would be better at that than other creatures, specifically those that already had sharper teeth, for example. Furthermore, creationists claim that God provided a fair amount of built-in variability in the genes, so possibly there was already the capability of, for example, a variety of teeth forms so that some creatures might develop teeth better suited for carnivory, and natural selection then favours those creatures. You might think that this is evolution, but the distinction is that the "better" teeth required nothing new, as the genetic information already existed.
::::::"''I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods.''": The dating methods are based on evolutionary theory (or naturalism, to be more precise) and the fossils do not show evolution.
::::::"''If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating...''": See [[radiometric dating]].
::::::"''Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen here...''": Carbon dating, yes, but rarely if ever other forms. Carbon dating is able to be calibrated with artefacts of known age for the last few thousand years, so creationists don't take issue with those dates, but get beyond a few thousand years and the methods can't be calibrated.
::::::"''...often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’...''": I don't recall ''ever'' seeing that particular claim.
::::::"''Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know.''": Well, that puts you ahead of many of the evolutionists who argue with me!
::::::"''No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better.''": Modern translations have it in modern measurements, in footnotes if not the actual text. And it's really not that hard to find out what a cubit was anyway, and not my job to tell you something that you could so easily find for yourself.
::::::"''Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!''": Not only those alive today, but those that have gone extinct as well. The average size of a dinosaur was about that of a chicken, if I recall correctly. Only relatively few were really large creatures, and it would have been better (for reproduction after the flood) to take young dinosaurs onto the ark, not fully grown ones. But I'm glad to see that you have learnt something! I don't think you're totally correct about the size of ancient boats, though.
::::::"''...also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation...''": If you read what the leading young-Earth creationists claim, instead of their critics and people who haven't really studied it, there would have been no reason for your confusion.
::::::"''Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view.''": What makes you think I only know it from one point of view? I get evolution thrust at me in the media, on the Internet, in endless debates with sceptics, in science journals and magazines, and books. I know quite a bit about both sides of the issue. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have relatively little knowledge of the creationist side of the issue. Hence my comment was justified. How much reading of the creationist view ''have'' you done?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== Dinosaurs are not Reptiles ==

Please remove that. >_< [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
:Why aren't they reptiles? I can find a number of sources that say that they are. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, reptiles are cold-blooded. The size and location of dinosaur remains, as well as their internal bone structures, have resulted in the discovery that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless this is [[common knowledge]], we'll need a reference or source for it. The article's not protected. --JJJ {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::: It's not common knowledge, because, as I said, I can find a number of sources that say that dinosaurs are reptiles. So I agree a source is needed. And I have two questions. 1) Is cold-bloodedness (still) considered a defining characteristic of reptiles (as distinct from a typical characteristic)? That is, does finding that dinosaurs are warm-blooded mean that they are not reptiles, or does it mean that cold-bloodedness is no longer considered an absolute requirement of reptilianness? 2) Have all dinosaurs been found to be warm-blooded, or just some? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is my understanding that some dinosaurs were found to be warm-blooded. I am not aware of any reclassification away from Reptilian. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why does this page and these thoeries ignore Megafauna? ==

Do you guys even know about megafauna? Why do you automaticlly assume that if antiquity mentions large animals, they are mentioning dinosaurs?

What about the megalania? Or the giant sharks, turtles and crocs of 30,000 years ago? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
: I know about megafauna, but what I don't know is what relevance they have to this article. Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Loch Ness Should Be Removed==

I dont want to get in to the debate of whether or not dino's were around with people or not but I think the Loch Ness section should be removed. Numerous reseachers have scoured the Loch and found nothing, no concrete evidence has been found and the famous "Surgeons picture" was admitted as fake by the surgeon on his deathbed. I may not agree with the premise of this article however I do believe it should a least remain *credible*.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:29, 19 February 2008 (EST)
: I'm not an expert on the Loch Ness monster, but I would have thought that there were a number of other claimed sightings that a particular picture being faked doesn't change a lot. The entry is already there in a qualified way rather than a definite way, so I don't think it matters a lot, and is (as far as I know) accurate in that people who believe it exists think that it could be a plesiosaur. But removing it wouldn't bother me too much. Anyway, I've unlocked the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'll take it out. Also, if there was a pleisour there it would have to be very old and there is not enough food to support a large carnivore such as a dinosaur. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:Maybe we can classify Nessie as "reported" - pending a really clear photo or some bones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I've removed the Loch Ness section for none of the above reasons. There's a better reason: plesiosaurs weren't dinosaurs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:03, 3 February 2012 (EST)

==Name==
The Greek translation of the name "dinosaur" is to be included; it is part of the history of the subject. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

==Source for claim needed==
The section regarding human and dinosaur fossils states that "It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn't live together." We should consider providing a citation that shows a prominent evolutionist making such an assertion. The current citation is unfortunately inadequate as it also fails to give an example. I fear that without such backing, this comes off sounding like a straw man argument. Any thoughts? Does anyone know where we can find something like this? [[User:Jdisciple|Jdisciple]] 11:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: The article doesn't claim that "prominent evolutionists" say this. I've added a reference to TalkOrigins saying effectively what this article refers to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Philip I believe you have misinterpreted the TalkOrigins response. When he says "There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs" he is talking about that none are found within the same period of time, and he goes on to say "If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places." That statement should be taken out unless someone can show a credible source of "some evolutionary scientists" making that assertion. [[User:AliG|AliG]] 12:05, 13 December 2009 (EDT)

== Error ==

There's an error about halfway through the article, inthe part about Dinosaurs possibly still living. it reads:
*
o Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag;

refs with no content must have a name

I thought the page might have loaded badly but refreshing the page doesn't change it. [[User:Bryankershaw|Bryankershaw]] 20:42, 30 July 2008)

: should be fixed now. thanks for pointing that out -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Evidence? ==

Much of your evidence functions on the basis that people have reported seeing it therefore it exists. This logic is flawed with examples such as Big Foot, the Lochness Monster and many other creatures of Urban Legend. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: Are you saying that claimed sightings of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tasmanian Tiger, and so on are to be totally ignored? Then why have various authorities spent considerable sums of money looking for those things (the Loch Ness monster, at least)? It's because claimed sightings, although certainly not conclusive ''proof'' by themselves, are valid ''evidence''.
: And no, the article does not say "people have reported seeing it therefore it exists" or anything amounting to that. Rather, it says that creationists have a range of arguments, one of which is that various sightings support that they have existed in human history.
: I will concede, however, that the arguments other than reported sightings are only briefly mentioned, compared to the sightings which are covered at some length.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)

----

== Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings ==

In one of the bullets, this page claims, "That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the Cretaceous strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times." Am I the only one that thinks this sounds ridiculous? It really should be taken out, although I am worried it will just be put back in. [[User:MikeRi|MikeRi]] 17:11, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

*This is something relating to Young Earth Creationism, Mike. Since all I know of it is from my exposure to it here, I don't involve myself with such issues. I would recommend you curtail your involvement with such issues here at CP, rather than be judgmental about something you are not expert on, however. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:19, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

*I agree with Mike, we should take out that out the part about Dinosaurs still being around. There's no evidence to support that Dinosaurs have not gone extinct, none from the Bible or any other Conservative doctrine. And TK you didn't have to be so offensive, in fact it's commonly believed that Dinosaurs are in fact extinct, and there's no expert that would say that they are not. Please restrict your involvement on an issue that you have no knowledge of. From your fellow Conservative.--[[User:CraigR|CraigR]] 21:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

== Argument about relative abundance of marine and terrestrial fossils ==

I have removed the argument that human and dinosaur fossils are not found together because most fossils are marine and we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all. This is EXACTLY THE SAME argument used by scientists to explain gaps in the sequence of human evolution, and the obvious danger from the creationist point of view is that after accepting this argument to explain the lack of human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, scientists are going to demand that it's also accepted to explain the absence of ape/human transitions. --[[User:Voiceoftruth2006|Voiceoftruth2006]] 10:36, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Popular Culture Re-Work ==

Removed prior (terrible) info and added a framework to start building up that section again with better information. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:22, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Iridium ==

This article included a query about the prevalence of iridium at the K-T boundary. The global average of iridium levels in the boundary layer is 15 times the background level, peaking at 160 times background near the crater (Alvarez et al, 1980.)

==Discussion==
Alright whatever your name is: if you want to discuss, do it on the talk page. Not by vandalizing the article. Here you go.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 21:51, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't engage them.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:52, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::Through engagement though we can show the user where they are wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]
:::They lost the right to discuss this when they created the first sock puppet. The fact they are allied with the people who promised some vandal attacks if we didn't make Conservapedia how they wanted it isn't helping--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:02, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::::indeed, good point. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::::True. I just wanted to get them to at least restrict the disruptive edits to the talk page, rather than the main article, until all this socking could be stopped.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 22:40, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== As far as can be proven... ==

What's wrong with the phrasing? It's more specific and mentions that, as far as we know, dinosaurs are in fact extinct. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 09:36, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Who is we? Atheists and people with deistic beliefs? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:49, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Dinosaur

2012-02-04T02:59:30Z

GeorgeLi: /* Extinction */ Best we don't go there...

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosaurs===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> At least 300 distinct [[genera]] of dinosaur have been identified.<ref>USGS [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/types.html]</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.[citation needed]

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
* Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actually very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref> Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
[[Creation science]] shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref> <ref> Find the full quote on [http://books.google.com/books?id=mAIjnLp6r_MC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Ernst+Mayr+1942+%22It+must+be+admitted,+however,+that+it+is+a+considerable+strain+on+one%27s+credulity+to+assume%22&source=bl&ots=TRDzBtumPF&sig=XwvnT327A9sn3Uvs0RLOaQNo5Zo&hl=en&ei=P6H6Te37LMSwhAf03fimAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false], starting from line 6. </ref> }}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most believe that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not constitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<ref>http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers</ref>

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
Dinosaurs have been a fixture of popular culture since their discovery. It is theorized that some of the myths of fantastical creatures stem from the accidental discovery of dinosaur fossils. More recently, dinosaurs have featured in popular stories including books, movies, television, video games, even music.

Dinosaurs were introduced to a wide modern audience when movies like the Jurassic Park series were released.
== See also ==

*[[Evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Young earth creationism]]

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Dinosaur

2012-02-04T02:56:17Z

GeorgeLi: /* Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings */

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosaurs===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> At least 300 distinct [[genera]] of dinosaur have been identified.<ref>USGS [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/types.html]</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.[citation needed]

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
* Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actually very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref> Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
[[Creation science]] shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref> <ref> Find the full quote on [http://books.google.com/books?id=mAIjnLp6r_MC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Ernst+Mayr+1942+%22It+must+be+admitted,+however,+that+it+is+a+considerable+strain+on+one%27s+credulity+to+assume%22&source=bl&ots=TRDzBtumPF&sig=XwvnT327A9sn3Uvs0RLOaQNo5Zo&hl=en&ei=P6H6Te37LMSwhAf03fimAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false], starting from line 6. </ref> }}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<ref>http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers</ref>

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
Dinosaurs have been a fixture of popular culture since their discovery. It is theorized that some of the myths of fantastical creatures stem from the accidental discovery of dinosaur fossils. More recently, dinosaurs have featured in popular stories including books, movies, television, video games, even music.

Dinosaurs were introduced to a wide modern audience when movies like the Jurassic Park series were released.
== See also ==

*[[Evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Young earth creationism]]

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Dinosaur

2012-02-04T02:55:32Z

GeorgeLi: /* Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings */ Pterosaurs weren't dinosaurs either.

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosaurs===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> At least 300 distinct [[genera]] of dinosaur have been identified.<ref>USGS [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/types.html]</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.[citation needed]

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
** Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actually very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref> Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
[[Creation science]] shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref> <ref> Find the full quote on [http://books.google.com/books?id=mAIjnLp6r_MC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Ernst+Mayr+1942+%22It+must+be+admitted,+however,+that+it+is+a+considerable+strain+on+one%27s+credulity+to+assume%22&source=bl&ots=TRDzBtumPF&sig=XwvnT327A9sn3Uvs0RLOaQNo5Zo&hl=en&ei=P6H6Te37LMSwhAf03fimAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false], starting from line 6. </ref> }}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<ref>http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers</ref>

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
Dinosaurs have been a fixture of popular culture since their discovery. It is theorized that some of the myths of fantastical creatures stem from the accidental discovery of dinosaur fossils. More recently, dinosaurs have featured in popular stories including books, movies, television, video games, even music.

Dinosaurs were introduced to a wide modern audience when movies like the Jurassic Park series were released.
== See also ==

*[[Evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Young earth creationism]]

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Dinosaur

2012-02-04T02:49:44Z

GeorgeLi: /* Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings */ Plesiosaurs weren't dinosaurs.

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosaurs===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> At least 300 distinct [[genera]] of dinosaur have been identified.<ref>USGS [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/types.html]</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.[citation needed]

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
** Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actually very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref> Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
[[Creation science]] shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref> <ref> Find the full quote on [http://books.google.com/books?id=mAIjnLp6r_MC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Ernst+Mayr+1942+%22It+must+be+admitted,+however,+that+it+is+a+considerable+strain+on+one%27s+credulity+to+assume%22&source=bl&ots=TRDzBtumPF&sig=XwvnT327A9sn3Uvs0RLOaQNo5Zo&hl=en&ei=P6H6Te37LMSwhAf03fimAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false], starting from line 6. </ref> }}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<ref>http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers</ref>

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
Dinosaurs have been a fixture of popular culture since their discovery. It is theorized that some of the myths of fantastical creatures stem from the accidental discovery of dinosaur fossils. More recently, dinosaurs have featured in popular stories including books, movies, television, video games, even music.

Dinosaurs were introduced to a wide modern audience when movies like the Jurassic Park series were released.
== See also ==

*[[Evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Young earth creationism]]

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

ObamaCare

2012-02-02T20:06:31Z

GeorgeLi: Undo revision 958316 by Moneill (talk)Yawn

[[File:ObamaCareSymbol.jpg|right|150px]]
'''ObamaCare''',<ref>http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/nswift/president-reagan-on-government-run-health-care</ref> more formally known as "'''The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'''," was passed by [[Congress]] on March 21, 2010, and signed into federal law by President [[Barack Obama]] on March 23. This law began the process to [[Socialism|socialize]] the [[United States]] [[health care]] system.<ref>Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed ObamaCare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: ObamaCare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> The centerpiece of ObamaCare is the individual mandate, a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which is unprecedented in American history. Through legislative mandates, ObamaCare requires private citizens to purchase health insurance, involuntarily fund [[abortion]]s, and pay for sex offenders to use Viagra under the threat of legal sanctions if they do not. The new law imposes penalties that will increase to 2.5% of one's income if he fails to purchase government-approved health insurance.

ObamaCare violates America's [[constitutional law]], according to the law as outlined in the [[U.S. Constitution]]; more than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against ObamaCare since President Barack Obama signed it into law.<ref>By Janet Adamy and Evan Perez. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704058704576015631138296112.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth Federal Judge to Rule on Health Law's Constitutionality], WSJ.com, December 13, 2010.</ref><ref>By Rep. [[Lamar Smith]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/19/rep-lamar-smith-voting-repeal-new-health-care-law/ REP. LAMAR SMITH: Why I Am Voting to Repeal the New Health Care Law], ''[[Fox News]]'' (FoxNews.com), Published January 19, 2011.</ref> In total, 27 states have started or joined in a lawsuit against Obamacare.<ref>Brandon Stewart. [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/ List of 27 States Suing Over ObamaCare], heritage.org, January 17, 2011.</ref> A federal judge ruled on 13 December 2010 that a central component of ObamaCare, the requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is quoted as saying the law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."<ref name=unconstitutional>Judge Rules Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional; First Round of Long Battle. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection Court Strikes at Health Law], By Janet Adamy (WSJ.com), December 14, 2010.</ref> Then on 31 January 2011 federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/ Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 31, 2011.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue], RushLimbaugh.com, February 1, 2011.</ref> The U.S. district judge declared ObamaCare unconstitutional because it violates the [[Commerce Clause]]. In a footnote attached to the ruling, federal judge Roger Vinson cited Barack Obama's position in 2008 from an interview with [[CNN]], when Obama stated that, "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."<ref>Stephen Dinan. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ Judge uses Obama’s words against him], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', January 31, 2011.</ref>

The [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) estimates the [[unconstitutional]] revenue generating device could produce as much as $36 billion over ten years.<ref>[http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/proposed-senate-plan-405168.html Proposed Senate Plan Would Involve IRS in Collecting Fines from Non-participants], ALLNURSES CENTRAL, Jul 03, 2009.</ref> The fines are euphemistically dubbed "shared responsibility payments."<ref>http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cbo-reports-entitlements-and-shared-responsibility</ref> Employers would be required to deduct the penalties from employees paychecks.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref> The State of [[Massachusetts]] has had a similar program in place for several years, and many have elected to pay the penalties rather than purchase insurance, and many remain uninsured.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) pointed out that there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan, and also offered a number of criticisms of Obama's health care plan.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> The AAPS maintains that Obama's health care plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care for a majority of United States citizens, plus reduce the quality of care that a [[free market]] system would otherwise provide.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> Political analyst and commentator [[Dick Morris]] has asserted that Obama's health care plan will lead to the significant use of rationing senior health care which will decrease the life span of senior citizens.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsImVGsFlmA</ref>

ObamaCare will do more than detrimentally impact healthcare accessibility. According to the [[Heritage Foundation]], Obama is intentionally sacrificing millions of jobs, at a time when unemployment is around 10%, with the Medicare surtax without any objective exception of increases in revenues.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Obamas-Capital-Gains-Tax-Hike-Unlikely-to-Increase-Revenues</ref> ObamaCare will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. The Congressional Budget Office says the figure would be more than 800,000 people would lose their jobs. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers, Weekly Standard, February 10, 2011]</ref>

On January 19, 2011, the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] voted 245-189 to repeal ObamaCare (56 percent to 44 percent). In an historic repudiation of an entitlement program that was only 10 months old, the House voted to overturn President Obama's health care takeover.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/house-poised-vote-health-law-repeal/ House Republicans Vote to Overturn ObamaCare in Symbolic Move], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 19, 2011.</ref><ref>An historic repudiation of an entitlement that is only 10 months old. ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Review & Outlook: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091973130244618.html The Repeal Vote], January 20, 2011.</ref> Repealing the bill would eliminate $770 billion in the newly mandated tax increases, according to the CBO.<ref>Philip Klein. [http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion], ''The American Spectator'', January 07, 2011.</ref> The CBO released accounting data which shows that repealing the national health care law would reduce net government spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021; that number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus [[Medicare]] cuts. The [[Tea Party Movement]] firmly supports the proposed repeal of ObamaCare.

On February 2, 2011, the [[U.S. Senate]] proceeded with a hearing to discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and whether or not the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of a fine is constitutional.<ref>Amanda Carey. [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/03/senate-hearing-on-health-care-bills-constitutionality-had-more-show-than-substance/ Senate hearing on health care bill’s constitutionality had more show than substance], ''The Daily Caller'', February 03, 2011.</ref> The amendment to repeal ObamaCare failed in the Senate by a 51-47 vote.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/02/undoing-obamacare-senate-repeal-fails-47-51-on-party-line-vote-1099-provision-killed-83-17/ Undoing Obamacare: Senate repeal fails 47-51 on party-line vote; 1099 provision killed 83-17], MichelleMalkin.com, February 2, 2011.</ref>

== Basic Requirements ==

Beginning in 2014, Americans will be required to buy government-approved, private health insurance or else pay a penalty.

Health insurance companies will be required to spend on medical care at least 80% of the premium payments they receive from individual and small-group plans (and at least 85% from large group plans). The federal government will define what constitutes medical care.

=== Immediate Impact in 2010 ===

Creating temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums for certain people with pre-existing conditions.

Imposing new taxes on some facilities, such as tanning parlors.

Health insurers raised premiums for Americans as a direct result of President Obama's health care overhaul.<ref>Janet Adamy. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', September 07, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703340904575285002595068326.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Health Law Augurs Transfer of Funds From Old to Young], WSJ.com, July 25, 2010.</ref>

=== Requirements for Insurance Companies ===

Prohibit bans on pre-existing health conditions in children, lifetime and annual limits on expenses, and limits coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions in adults.

Requires family policies to include children up to age 26.

Does allow states to form compacts in order to allow the interstate sale of insurance.

Requires direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, which might include [[abortion]].

Creates (by 2014) health insurance exchanges or marketplaces that will be state-based and state-administered, but states can opt out of this if certain conditions are met; insurance can be sold within the exchange only if government-approved, but insurance can be sold outside of the exchange.

Prohibits health plans from discriminating against providers, but plans are not required to contract with any provider.

Requires health plans to develop politically correct language services, community outreach and cultural competency trainings.

=== Employer Requirements ===

Requires employers having more than 50 full-time employees must provide health insurance or pay a penalty.

Employees having 25 or less full-time employees and average salaries of $50,000 or less can apply for tax credits to provide health insurance to their employees.

=== Medicaid ===

ObamaCare expands Medicaid (medical care for the poor) to everyone (under the Medicare age of 65) who has income less than 133% the federal poverty level. States must pay this enormous new burden, but federal government promises to reimburse costs of newly eligible patients under this program from 2014 to 2016.

=== New Bureaucracy ===

Establishes a new Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program with the goal of creating non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in every state

== Basis for Legal Challenges ==

The basis for legal challenges against ObamaCare is predicated on the unconstitutionality of health care bill. ObamaCare includes an "individual responsibility requirement" compelling persons to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The legal justification for this requirement by Congress is the [[Commerce Clause]]:
{{cquote|The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section ... is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2). ... [Paragraph (2) states,] The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.}}

Apparently uncertain that this would withstand legal scrutiny as a valid exercise of Commerce Clause authority, on March 21 (the same day as passage) the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 157-page "technical explanation" of the bill. This "explanation" grounded the justification for the bill in the tax authority of Congress, and nowhere mentioned commerce. As Professor Randy Barnett explained in an article on April 29, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal:
{{cquote|The word "commerce" appeared nowhere. Instead, the personal mandate is dubbed an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage." But while the enacted bill does impose excise taxes on "high cost," employer-sponsored insurance plans and "indoor tanning services," the statute never describes the regulatory "penalty" it imposes for violating the mandate as an "excise tax." It is expressly called a "penalty."}}

Professor Barnett then explained that in ''Bailey v. Drexel Furniture'' (1922), "the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, 'there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.'" A subsequent Supreme Court decision, ''U.S. v. Kahriger'' (1953), upheld a punitive tax on gambling based on an express statement in the law that Congress was exercising its power to tax. No such statement exists in ObamaCare. ''See also Sonzinsky v. U.S.'' (1937) ("Inquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts."). Professor Barnett noted that the penalty is not enforced as a tax in a customary manner, providing further evidence that ObamaCare is based on the Commerce Clause and not on any taxing authority.

Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. The federal judge also wrote:
{{Cquote|At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.<ref name=unconstitutional/>}}

It has also been pointed out that because the penalty applies to inactivity, it is beyond the powers authorized by the [[Sixteenth Amendment]].

Since the [[federal]] judge decided the entire healthcare reform bill law was unconstitutional, states such as Alaska have decided not to implement the mandated reforms. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/alaska-governor-refuses-enact-obamacare/?test=latestnews Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact 'ObamaCare', Fox News, February 17, 2011]</ref> This prompted Obama's Justice Department to appeal to Judge Vinson by claiming that states cannot ignore the new health care law while his ruling is being appealed.

==History of Mandatory Coverage==

One of the early proposals (a predecessor to the one enacted) would create a system to require adults (over age 19, U.S. citizens, not incarcerated) to enroll themselves and dependent children in a plan through the state-wide Health Help Agency (HHA) unless they provide evidence of enrollment or coverage through Medicare, a health insurance plan offered by the Department of Defense, an employee benefit plan through a former employer (i.e. retiree health plans), a qualified collective bargaining agreement, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Indian Health Service. There may by a religious exemption under this proposal. Each adult would have the responsibility to enroll each child in a plan. Dependent children include individuals up to age 24 claimed by their parents for deductions in the tax code.
[[File:Penalty.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then under Obamacare a financial penalty may be assessed for non-indigent individuals.]]

===History of Penalty for Failure to Purchase Coverage===

If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be assessed for non-indigent individuals. Under an early proposal for mandatory care, the penalty was calculated by multiplying the number of uncovered months times the weighted average of the monthly premium for a plan in the person’s coverage class and coverage area, plus 15 percent.

Fines were to be paid to the HHA of the State in which the person resides. That agency also may establish a procedure to waive the penalty if the penalty poses a hardship. Each State would determine appropriate mechanisms to enforce the requirement that individuals be enrolled.<ref> http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/HAA_Section_by_Section.pdf</ref>

The law that was enacted replaced the state-based approach with a direct penalty to be paid to the United States.

===Privacy Rights===

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/obama-health-bill-allows-government-real-time-access-to-bank-accounts/ Obama Health Bill Allows Government Real-time Access to Bank Accounts], Kurt Nimmo, Infowars, August 3, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://kfyi.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=118695&article=5824042 Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook], KFYI News.</ref><ref>http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/2009/07/22/inside-the-health-care-bill-aka-hr3200/</ref><ref>http://www.kfyi.com/cc-common/mlib/622/08/622_1249314906.pdf</ref>

==Rationed Care==

Doctors have said they anticipate more people waiting in the waiting-rooms, more phone calls, people upset because they want to be seen now. Doctors will be overbooked. As the health care system brings in more and more patients, the system will be overwhelmed. ObamaCare will be a tremendous burden for doctors in the United States.

ObamaCare will shorten the amount of time Doctors have with each patient, and lengthen the amount of time patients will have to wait. Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu said that the current bill passed into law will create a scenario where the supply cannot meet the demand. Because the necessary health care reform needs are not included in ObamaCare, there are still no protections for physicians in the medical industry, and doctors are going into the profession to work harder to earn less.

There will be an oversight board where the government looks at what should and shouldn't be given to patients, regardless of medical need. There is going to be rationing of care, according to Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu. Doctors have agreed there will be "rationed care" under ObamaCare.<ref>[http://beta.video.foxbusiness.com/v/4115101/doctors-respond-to-health-care-reform/?playlist_id=87185 Doctors Respond to Health-Care Reform], FoxBusiness.com, March 18, 2010.</ref>

==Disinformation==

If private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of ObamaCare, the proposed take over of the health care industry, whether its communicated through e-mail, websites, blogs, or even casual conversation the Obama administration has asked that these people be reported to the executive branch of the federal government.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/08/06/welcome_to_gestapo-care</ref> To counter any discussions related to the repeal of ObamaCare, or that are against the implementation of ObamaCare which will in turn destroy jobs and create more taxpayer debt, a Web page at whitehouse.gov entitled "Reality Check" has claimed that the president's program "would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit."<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq</ref>

The [[CBO]] is mandated to prepare cost estimates and to show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law.<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml</ref> A July 15 2009 letter from the CBO made this assessment,
{{Cquote|Enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52306</ref>}} However, deceptively, CBO analysis of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills show that they would reduce the federal budget deficit by $109 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=421</ref> and $81 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387</ref> respectively.

In a 2010 report, HHS claimed a provision in the health-care law would extend the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. The Congressional Budget Office released a memo that said HHS’s math was more than a little off.

Health and Human Services Secretary [[Kathleen Sebelius]] appearing on Capitol Hill for questioning admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget. Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania said “The same dollar can’t be used twice. This is the largest of the many budget gimmicks Democrats used to claim Obamacare would reduce the deficit.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hhs-secretary-sebelius-admits-to-double-counting-in-obamacare-budget/ HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare, The Daily Caller, March 4, 2011]</ref>

== Obama Administration health care plan and liberal elitism ==
[[File:Arrogant obama.jpg|right|125px|thumbnail|[[Barack Obama]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress."<ref>http://www.emaxhealth.com/10/18430.html</ref> However, recently when a newspaper reporter pressed Obama on whether he would commit to Americans having the same health care as congressmen, Obama repeatedly refused to commit to his previous promise of Americans having the same coverage as members of Congress.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama merely claimed Americans would have health care coverage that would "largely match up" with what members of Congress have.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama also stated he is constantly followed around by a personal physician.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref>

The Obama administration's [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitism]] is not unusual when it comes to health care. For example, [[Belinda Stronach]], a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, chose to have a surgical treatment in the United States rather than be treated in Canada for her condition ([[Canada]] has a [[socialized medicine]] system of health care).<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/14/canadian-official-refuses-canadian-health-care/</ref>
[[File:MedSybolBlog.jpg|left|125px]]

Congressman [[John Fleming]] has offered a legislative amendment that would require United States congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they try to force on others (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his website and sign his petition.<ref>http://fleming.house.gov/index.html</ref>

===Two-Tier Health Care System===
Socialist regimes reveal their true nature by the special treatment they give to their permanent ruling class; they deny such treatment for ordinary citizens of their country. The worst corruption in socialist regimes flows from that simple two-caste system. Obama’s medical takeover bill is a monstrosity in many ways, but the biggest danger comes from the separate treatment it reserves for the ruling left compared to us ordinary folks.<ref>As is true in all socialist countries, there will be one standard of health care for you and me — and then a higher standard for the ruling class. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-means-a-two-tier-health-care-system/ ObamaCare Means a Two-Tier Health Care System], by James Lewis at ''Pajamas Media'', March 9, 2010.</ref>

The first example of ObamaCare's creation of a two-tier health care system was seen as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet and watch as their health care costs increase due to provisions in ObamaCare. Senate staffers planned to participate in a two-day orgy of back massages, organic food tastings and milk mustache photos as part of a "health fair" for the staffers, who enjoy some of the best health care in the country.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/senate-office-host-health-fair-covered-staffers/ Senate Office to Host Health Fair for Well-Covered Staffers], FoxNews.com, October 08, 2010.</ref> The Senate staffers will be treated to seated massages, herbal [[tea|teas]], polarity therapy, low-fat [[cheese]] samples and organic foods. A [[pharmacist]] and health coach will be available to speak to fair-goers about their medications, nutrition and healthy lifestyle questions. All of which is at the American taxpayers expense.

Less than one year after ObamaCare was signed into law, 111 [[unions]], companies, and organizations had received approval for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lots-of-unions-are-on-the-hidden-list-to-receive-obamacare-waivers/ Lots of Unions Are on the ‘Hidden’ List to Receive ObamaCare Waivers], ''[[The Blaze]]'', November 15, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers>Applications for waivers from annual limit requirements: [http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711], (as of December 3, 2010).</ref><ref>When the American people learned that the congressmen who wrote the new healthcare law were exempt from it, questions regarding the alleged benefits of the new legislation were raised. Further proof that ObamaCare may not be all that it was touted to be can be found in the fact that 111 companies, including a number of unions, have been given waivers to be exempted from certain provisions of the law. [http://www.examiner.com/will-county-libertarian-in-chicago/government-health-care-is-not-law-for-everyone?cid=parsely#parsely Government Health Care is not law for everyone], by Steve Balich, Examiner.com, November 15, 2010.</ref><ref>Warner Todd Huston. [http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/11/15/obamacare-waivers-prove-policy-is-a-jobs-killer-unions-benefit-most/ Obamacare Waivers Prove Policy is a Jobs Killer, Unions Benefit Most], biggovernment.com, November 15, 2010.</ref> By December 7, 2010, the list of unions, companies, and insurers who have used the HHS waiver as an escape to avoid the costly, destructive consequences of Obamacare for their members and employees grew from 111 to 222.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/07/obamacare-waiver-mania-continues-list-tops-222/ Obamacare Waiver-mania! continues: List tops 222], MichelleMalkin.com, December 7, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers/> More than 50 unions have already received waivers.<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011711/content/01125114.guest.html Why We Must Repeal Obamacare], RushLimbaugh.com, January 17, 2011.</ref> Moreover, three [[Service Employees International Union]] (SEIU) local chapters, including the [[Chicago]] chapter, whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.<ref>Fred Lucas. [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement], CNSnews.com, January 24, 2011.</ref>

===Treatment of Elders===
Some critics, including former Vice-Presidential hopeful [[Sarah Palin]], have accused Obama of planning on setting up "Death Panels" to judge the worthiness and "cost effectiveness" of keeping certain people alive, such as senior citizens. In spite of public outcry over death panels, the Obama administration is pressing forward to enact the same measures by bureaucratic regulations, called "end-of-life planning."<ref>Meredith Jessup. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/return-of-death-panels-obama-to-enact-end-of-life-planning-for-medicare/ Return of ‘Death Panels’? Obama to Enact End-of-Life Planning for Medicare], ''[[The Blaze]]'', December 26, 2010.</ref> Quoting research from the [[British Medical Journal]], the [[Obama administration]] insists death panels are humane: "Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."

This "end-of-life" care is apparently to be doled out like pork from a salt barrel from the 200 or so "Elderly Care Centers" nationwide that will distribute strictly rationed medication to those in need until such time as the "committee" considers the patient to be too old. 200 centers in the country amounts to about 4 per state on average, though California, Massachusetts and Iowa were able to grab more funding from the Obama administration through a combination of political dealings and judicial activism <ref>http://blogs.smartmoney.com/tax/2011/02/10/lights-camera-tax-scandal-iowa-trial-begins/</ref> The majority of Elderly Care Centers are located in urban areas of states; for example, the state of Kansas has only two Elderly Care Centers for their entire retired population and both are located in Topeka, far from the rural elderly who "need" government help the most. This may be a strategy to reduce the strain on the system by allowing a large portion of the elderly to die off "naturally," while still making a show of treating them in cities, where liberal voters tend to congregate.

There have already been deaths attributed to doctors exercising newly-granted authority from these extra-judicial decision making bodies. A young girl, in liberal California of all places, was told that her liver transplant was not "worth it," because she wouldn't live long enough to justify the value of the organ. Though public outcry forced the doctors to change their minds after ten days, but those ten days were enough to kill an innocent child. Another woman, a nurse in Texas, was denied treatment for her breast cancer, purportedly because she was in middle age and was not worth the "investment." <ref>http://dying.about.com/od/ethicsandchoices/a/death_panels.htm</ref>

Under Obamacare, in every state taxpayer dollars originally slated for caring for the elderly in our communities have been transferred to a "Community Health" slush fund run by federal government-appointed bureaucrats. The purpose of this fund is to allow unscrupulous doctors and insurance companies, who are the acknowledged source of our high health costs, to charge ridiculous amounts of money for basic services, without leaving a paper trail or even committing a (legal) crime.

==Polls==
Taken from an [[Associated Press|AP]] poll, on January 17, 2011, Kellyanne Conway, president of the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, pointed out that when asked if voters would favor a law "that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor," 59 percent are opposed.<ref>Katrina Trinko. [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257331/two-new-obamacare-polls-have-high-numbers-democrats-misleading-questions-katrina-trink# Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions], ''National Review'', January 17, 2011.</ref> {{Cquote|When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it," Conway said.}}
One week after a federal district judge ruled in favor of 26 states and declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, Rasmussen's poll of likely voters showed that Americans support its repeal by a margin of 21 percentage points (58 to 37 percent). Among [[independents]], the margin in support of repeal was even higher: 27 points (63 to 36 percent).<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-rasmussen-poll-obamacare_541512.html New Rasmussen Poll on Obamacare], ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'', February 7, 2011.</ref> The pollsters also point out that many voters don't just want Obamacare repealed — they also want it replaced with a better system.

* On August 29, 2011, the ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'' national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters showed that 57% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-seven percent (37%) at least somewhat oppose repeal, with 25% who are Strongly Opposed.<ref>Voters Express Stronger Enthusiasm for Health Care Repeal. [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law Health Care Law], ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'', August 29, 2011.</ref>

* According to the ''Kaiser Health Tracking'' [[poll]], as reported on August 30, 2011, 44% of Americans have an unfavorable view of ObamaCare. Only 39% of those surveyed have a favorable view of the law.<ref>Conn Carroll. [http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obamacare-support-all-time-low Poll: Obamacare support at all time low], ''The Washington Examiner'', August 30, 2011.</ref>

* According to a monthly poll from the ''Kaiser Family Foundation'', as reported by ''[[The Hill]]'' on October 28, 2011, 51 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view while only 34 percent had a favorable impression of ObamaCare.<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/190399-healthcare-laws-popularity-hits-a-new-low-poll-says Healthcare law's popularity hits new low], ''[[The Hill]]'', October 28, 2011.</ref>

== See Also ==
[[File:Dr Obama.jpg|right|150px]]
* [[Socialized Medicine]]
* [[Obamunism]]
* [[Barack Hussein Obama#Obama's Medical Administrator|Obama's Medicare/Medicaid Administrator]]
* [[Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.aapsonline.org/obamacare-bill/ ObamaCare] by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM The Obama health care press conference: The Public Option]
*[http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=653 Collectivism and Obama, McCain], featuring David Boaz, [[CATO Institute]] Daily Podcast, June 10, 2008.
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071510/content/01125107.guest.html White House Snaps Fingers and Triggers End of Private Insurance], [[Rush Limbaugh]] on how the Obama Administration just issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage.
*[[Fox News|FoxNews.com]]: [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/19/taxpayer-calculator-health-care-repeal Taxpayer Calculator: ''Find Out How Much Health Care Law Is Costing YOU'']. To find out how much your taxes will increase because of ObamaCare, [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-coverage-provisions CLICK HERE]. In addition to calculating your individual tax burden caused by the overall health care takeover, FoxNews.com has also broken down the bill into three main pieces: the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-exchange-subsidies-related-spending.htm gross cost of exchange subsidies and related spending], the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-medicaid-chip-outlays.htm cost of Medicaid and expense of the Children's Health Insurance Program], and the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/healthcare-bill-gross-cost-of-small-employer-tax-credits.htm cost of small employer tax credits].

{{Liberalism}}

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

[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

[[Category: Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category: Health]]

Age of the Earth

2012-02-02T20:05:58Z

GeorgeLi: Undo revision 958314 by Moneill (talk)Vandalism

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. The subject is still debated today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism|young-Earth scientists]], who believe that the Earth is only approximately 6,000-10,000 years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] and scientists who argue that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> The scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. The biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'', that provides much of the scientific evidence in support of a young Earth.

The fatal flaw in Old Earth arguments is their overreliance on the assumption that the [[Radiometric dating|rate of radioactive decay]] remains constant over thousands of years. In fact, a large number of physical processes, such as neutron capture and fluctuations in solar radiation can affect the rate of radioactive decay of elements in the Earth's crust and render radioactive dating measurements unreliable.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus,<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref> viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an official [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], while not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</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>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] 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://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:Liberal

2012-02-01T18:09:56Z

GeorgeLi: /* Disarmament treaties */ new section

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Picture ==

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

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)
:You are close-minded. When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking. We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us? I think deep down inside ''you fear us'' by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)

I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my "side" hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

:No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Introductory remarks ==

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:
:::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

== Child porn? ==

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=prev&oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
:::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== A few minor things ==

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

'':And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''''

:The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article. I agree that they probably dispute it. Look at the title of the list it is in. A liberal would not support that quote. So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'''Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian.''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:NPOV = ? I am a supporter of the Conservative Party.

:I am not arguing with the statement at this time. I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::Re-wording and placement are subjective, right? Since Conservapedia is an ''American'' encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric. What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K. That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language. I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:::My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism. It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list. I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think. I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::::That would be super, Josh!

::::I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

==[[Classical liberalism]]==

Can we say something about the "good" kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when "conservative" foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

== Liberal corporations section proposal ==

I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.

:That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal. Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)

::Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.

:::It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country? ==

If this country was not founded on christianity? --[[User:MahmoudAlzwarii|MahmoudAlzwarii]] 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

==[[Liberals in Europe]]==

Well, only in the USA are Liberals considered als leftist, in Europe the liberals ARE some kind of conservatives.

== this article has been a mess since april 10, 2011 ==

Here is a former sentence which I altered which is the beginning of the article: For example, FDR, '''one of the few great democratic Presidents''', firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties.

Yes, he did carry out WWII well, but economically he was a disaster and he stacked the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Plus, FDR instituted social security with no foresight to consider rising longevity plus with no opt out. Plus, he practiced [[Keynesian economics]] and prolonged the Great Depression.

I think the person who added this sentence had good intentions, but I don't think the person was educated about some of the poor decisions FDR made.

Since liberal is a key article, I think it is a bad mistake to not exercise increased vigilance in watching the content. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:11, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:I have often heard "FDR prolonged the Depression" stated as a fact, but have never seen the evidence for this. Do you have any? [[User:JacobD|JacobD]] 09:09, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Look how fast the ex-President and businessman [[Calvin Coolidge]] licked the economic depression under his administration. Look at the results of Obama's stimulus and the Japanese multiple stimulus packages. While I do believe in the Glass–Steagall Act, anti-monopoly legislation and convicting businessman of fraud and other laws the general citizenry is under, the free enterprise system is more efficient and dynamic than state controlled economies. Although I am an ideological mix of conservatism/libertarianism and do not agree with everything that the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates, I would suggest reading their website's material: http://mises.org/ [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

==Nazis and pedarists==

Conservapedia aims to have concise artiles that are not "verbose" but this article had descended into adolescent diatribe. The fact that any liberal is a pedarist is irrelevant to this article. There are sadly those in all political persuasions. Liberals may be more tolerant to certain peversions but discussing that enters into too much subjectivity -when presented in this way it degenerates into "throwing ones toys" at the oponent. Also, the Nazis are not liberal by either the standrds of classical liberalism (obviously not) nor modern liberalism. They may have had many socialist policies at an economic level but they were not liberals in terms of social policy. They were authoritarian. If a comparison needs tyo be made reagarding liberalism, communism and national socialism, it is best in its own article . It is totally unhelpful. oose comparison to the "Nazis" has long been identified as a point at which the accuser is starting to lose sight of credible arguments for their case. [[User:DavidMilton]]

== headline reversion ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&curid=3039&diff=909680&oldid=908925 Re: this edit] I don't think its fair to say '''all''' liberals reject biblical standards because some liberals are really quite religious. Wouldn't it be fair to say some do conform to some biblical standard even if it is their own interpretation? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Political Correctness is not the opposite of free speech. ==

While it could be argued that political correctness is a form of censorship it is not the opposite of free speech. Political Correctness is a limitation placed on free speech but it is not the opposite. Nobody is forced to be political correct though societal/political pressure may be high. It just doesn't work out. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 18:32, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
: And of couse 'Political Correctness' is only visible if you disagree with it. The sort of censorship that conservative commentators deride as 'Political correctness' has always been with us; it's just that for most of our history, it's been a conservative viewpoint that has been regarded as correct by definition and unable to be questioned. Since the victory of liberal democracy during the 20th century, and the unleashing of people from repressive and restrictive autocracies of various kinds (in no small part due to the radically liberal foundational ideas of the great US democratic system), different political ideas have come to be regarded by thoughtful people as axiomatic, and the less flexibly minded among us have suddenly noticed the phenomenon, and christened it 'Political Correctness.'
: But of course what really puzzles me about this talk page is that some people actually seem to take it seriously, whereas the article is actually just a joke - some playground-level name-calling tricked up as an encyclopedia article. And i'm also genuinely puzzled why anyone who contributes to this nonsense would think it likely to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it - why do you waste your time?. Or is that not the point - is it just here to preach to the choir - to encourage the troops, rather than convince anyone else? [[User:MachinaSapiens|MachinaSapiens]] 08:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:::The abolition of slavery was done by religious conservatives. Mass murdering communism and genocidal master race evolutionism was the work of the left. In addition, even though MLK tilted left, he still was a black minister with many conservative ideas. So your victories seem rather shallow at best. By the way, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to do some serious damage to the specious liberal ideology of evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disarmament treaties ==

I've removed the sentence on disarmament treaties because it doesn't fit. What liberals like is unilateral disarmament. A treaty reduces weapons on both sides and maintains balance. Reagan's arms reduction treaties with the USSR were negotiated from a position of strength and were a great achievement, which wouldn't have been possible with liberal policies. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 13:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Liberal

2012-02-01T18:04:20Z

GeorgeLi:

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
A '''liberal''' (not to be confused with a ''leftist''), is someone who represents or is support of some form of liberalism. This often includes social progressivism. Particularly in the [[United States]], the term may also be associated with irreligious people, or those who otherwise disagree with moral or social standards held as traditional by American [[Christian|Christians]]. Some may be [[Christian]], but they are rarely immensely committed to Christianity. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[welfare state]]-ist. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into a delusional (in the sense of economic views) and anti-traditional ideology.

For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in cahoots with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich out of existence and redistributing that money. The commerce clause on the other hand is in the constitution and says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government vastly expanding its power. The latest example is Obamacare. In Obamacare, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states. This is clearly a stretched interpretation of the clause as there is a difference between regulating commerce and forcing citizens to participate in commerce that Congress can regulate.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown that more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, by a ratio of 2:1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs.
* Government solving economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the only reason Muslim extremists hate us is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Prohibition of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Trying to impede the economic freedom of [[Job Creators]]
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Supports financially irresponsible policies
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Quotes==
*Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.
~Martin Luther King
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
~H.L. Menken
*Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept
~Sam Harris
*If most of those who took part in this one-dimensional debate were honest with themselves, they would admit that they do not in principle believe that the United States can do any good overseas for anyone but the American government, its armed forces, or privileged American elites.
~Christopher Hitchens
*"I do know without fear of contradiction what the definition of life is and it is 12 words long. 'Life is defined by how much you improve the lives of others.'"
~Keith Olbermann
*"When Conservatives crusade against government while they are trying to be appointed to head the government, I think that's weird!
~Rachel Maddow
*Krugman [...] was not cheerfully advocating a housing bubble, but instead he was glumly saying that the only way he could see to get out of the recession would be for such a bubble to occur
~Arnold Kling
*I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
~Barack Obama

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Liberal

2012-02-01T17:59:30Z

GeorgeLi: "Radical" is redundant. Evolutionism isn't part of any ideology; it's just bad science. Universal health care is actually a good idea; Obamacare isn't.

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
A '''liberal''' (not to be confused with a ''leftist''), is someone who represents or is support of some form of liberalism. This often includes social progressivism. Particularly in the [[United States]], the term may also be associated with irreligious people, or those who otherwise disagree with moral or social standards held as traditional by American [[Christian|Christians]]. Some may be [[Christian]], but they are rarely immensely committed to Christianity. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[welfare state]]-ist. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into a delusional (in the sense of economic views) and anti-traditional ideology.

For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in cahoots with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich out of existence and redistributing that money. The commerce clause on the other hand is in the constitution and says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government vastly expanding its power. The latest example is Obamacare. In Obamacare, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states. This is clearly a stretched interpretation of the clause as there is a difference between regulating commerce and forcing citizens to participate in commerce that Congress can regulate.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown that more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, by a ratio of 2:1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs.
* Government solving economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the only reason Muslim extremists hate us is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Prohibition of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Trying to impede the economic freedom of [[Job Creators]]
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Supports financially irresponsible policies
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Quotes==
*Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.
~Martin Luther King
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
~H.L. Menken
*Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept
~Sam Harris
*If most of those who took part in this one-dimensional debate were honest with themselves, they would admit that they do not in principle believe that the United States can do any good overseas for anyone but the American government, its armed forces, or privileged American elites.
~Christopher Hitchens
*"I do know without fear of contradiction what the definition of life is and it is 12 words long. 'Life is defined by how much you improve the lives of others.'"
~Keith Olbermann
*"When Conservatives crusade against government while they are trying to be appointed to head the government, I think that's weird!
~Rachel Maddow
*Krugman [...] was not cheerfully advocating a housing bubble, but instead he was glumly saying that the only way he could see to get out of the recession would be for such a bubble to occur
~Arnold Kling
*I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
~Barack Obama

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Liberal

2012-02-01T17:56:07Z

GeorgeLi: Is big business even supposed to be in government? I thought we elected our government...

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
A '''liberal''' (not to be confused with a ''leftist''), is someone who represents or is support of some form of liberalism. This often includes social progressivism. Particularly in the [[United States]], the term may also be associated with irreligious people, or those who otherwise disagree with moral or social standards held as traditional by American [[Christian|Christians]]. Some may be [[Christian]], but they are rarely immensely committed to Christianity. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[welfare state]]-ist. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into a delusional (in the sense of economic views) and anti-traditional ideology.

For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in cahoots with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich out of existence and redistributing that money. The commerce clause on the other hand is in the constitution and says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government vastly expanding its power. The latest example is Obamacare. In Obamacare, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states. This is clearly a stretched interpretation of the clause as there is a difference between regulating commerce and forcing citizens to participate in commerce that Congress can regulate.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown that more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, by a ratio of 2:1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs.
* Government solving economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the only reason radical Muslim extremists hate us is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Prohibition of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-aided medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Trying to impede the economic freedom of [[Job Creators]]
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Supports financially irresponsible policies
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Quotes==
*Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.
~Martin Luther King
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
~H.L. Menken
*Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept
~Sam Harris
*If most of those who took part in this one-dimensional debate were honest with themselves, they would admit that they do not in principle believe that the United States can do any good overseas for anyone but the American government, its armed forces, or privileged American elites.
~Christopher Hitchens
*"I do know without fear of contradiction what the definition of life is and it is 12 words long. 'Life is defined by how much you improve the lives of others.'"
~Keith Olbermann
*"When Conservatives crusade against government while they are trying to be appointed to head the government, I think that's weird!
~Rachel Maddow
*Krugman [...] was not cheerfully advocating a housing bubble, but instead he was glumly saying that the only way he could see to get out of the recession would be for such a bubble to occur
~Arnold Kling
*I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
~Barack Obama

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Liberal

2012-02-01T17:53:29Z

GeorgeLi: The main disarmament treaties of the 20th century were developed and signed by Ronald Reagan, and they were a great idea.

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
A '''liberal''' (not to be confused with a ''leftist''), is someone who represents or is support of some form of liberalism. This often includes social progressivism. Particularly in the [[United States]], the term may also be associated with irreligious people, or those who otherwise disagree with moral or social standards held as traditional by American [[Christian|Christians]]. Some may be [[Christian]], but they are rarely immensely committed to Christianity. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[welfare state]]-ist. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into a delusional (in the sense of economic views) and anti-traditional ideology.

For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in cahoots with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich out of existence and redistributing that money. The commerce clause on the other hand is in the constitution and says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government vastly expanding its power. The latest example is Obamacare. In Obamacare, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states. This is clearly a stretched interpretation of the clause as there is a difference between regulating commerce and forcing citizens to participate in commerce that Congress can regulate.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown that more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, by a ratio of 2:1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs.
* Government solving economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the only reason radical Muslim extremists hate us is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Prohibition of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Getting big business out of government through progressive taxation.
* Government-aided medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Trying to impede the economic freedom of [[Job Creators]]
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Supports financially irresponsible policies
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Quotes==
*Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.
~Martin Luther King
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
~H.L. Menken
*Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept
~Sam Harris
*If most of those who took part in this one-dimensional debate were honest with themselves, they would admit that they do not in principle believe that the United States can do any good overseas for anyone but the American government, its armed forces, or privileged American elites.
~Christopher Hitchens
*"I do know without fear of contradiction what the definition of life is and it is 12 words long. 'Life is defined by how much you improve the lives of others.'"
~Keith Olbermann
*"When Conservatives crusade against government while they are trying to be appointed to head the government, I think that's weird!
~Rachel Maddow
*Krugman [...] was not cheerfully advocating a housing bubble, but instead he was glumly saying that the only way he could see to get out of the recession would be for such a bubble to occur
~Arnold Kling
*I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
~Barack Obama

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Liberal

2012-02-01T17:52:04Z

GeorgeLi:

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
A '''liberal''' (not to be confused with a ''leftist''), is someone who represents or is support of some form of liberalism. This often includes social progressivism. Particularly in the [[United States]], the term may also be associated with irreligious people, or those who otherwise disagree with moral or social standards held as traditional by American [[Christian|Christians]]. Some may be [[Christian]], but they are rarely immensely committed to Christianity. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[welfare state]]-ist. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into a delusional (in the sense of economic views) and anti-traditional ideology.

For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in cahoots with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich out of existence and redistributing that money. The commerce clause on the other hand is in the constitution and says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government vastly expanding its power. The latest example is Obamacare. In Obamacare, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states. This is clearly a stretched interpretation of the clause as there is a difference between regulating commerce and forcing citizens to participate in commerce that Congress can regulate.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown that more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, by a ratio of 2:1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs.
* Government solving economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the only reason radical Muslim extremists hate us is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Prohibition of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Getting big business out of government through progressive taxation.
* Government-aided medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Trying to impede the economic freedom of [[Job Creators]]
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Supports financially irresponsible policies
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Quotes==
*Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.
~Martin Luther King
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
~H.L. Menken
*Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept
~Sam Harris
*If most of those who took part in this one-dimensional debate were honest with themselves, they would admit that they do not in principle believe that the United States can do any good overseas for anyone but the American government, its armed forces, or privileged American elites.
~Christopher Hitchens
*"I do know without fear of contradiction what the definition of life is and it is 12 words long. 'Life is defined by how much you improve the lives of others.'"
~Keith Olbermann
*"When Conservatives crusade against government while they are trying to be appointed to head the government, I think that's weird!
~Rachel Maddow
*Krugman [...] was not cheerfully advocating a housing bubble, but instead he was glumly saying that the only way he could see to get out of the recession would be for such a bubble to occur
~Arnold Kling
*I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
~Barack Obama

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

F-4 Phantom

2012-02-01T12:59:10Z

GeorgeLi:

The '''McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II''' was a supersonic long-range all-weather fighter-bomber used by the [[United States]] military from 1960 to 1996.

It was the fighter and fighter-bomber used by the [[United States Air Force]], [[United States Navy|Navy]] and [[United States Marine Corps|Marines]] during the Vietnam war. It was used both by the Navy [[Blue Angels]] demonstration team and the Air Force [[Thunderbirds]].

Some are still in service with other nations who bought them from the United States.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom

Type: Supersonic fighter bomber

Powerplant: Two General Electric J79-GE-10 afterburning turbojet

Performance: Top speed 1500 mph

Dimensions: Wingspan 38 ft. 4 in. Length 58 ft 2 in.

Armament: One 20 millimeter Vulcan cannon (E and F models only<ref>Although other models could carry external gun pods.</ref>), and either four [[AIM-7 Sparrow]] missiles and four [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] missiles or 16,000 lb bombload.

==Phantoms over Vietnam==
The conflict most commonly associated with the F-4, at least by Americans, is the [[Vietnam War]]. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all flew Phantoms throughout the conflict. In the first part of the war, they were mainly tasked with escort duties.<ref>In the beginning, [[F-100 Super Sabre]]s flew escort missions, but they were found incapable of dealing with MiGs, and re-assigned.</ref> Consequently, most of the MiGs shot down over Vietnam, including the first ones, fell to Phantom-launched missiles. The Phantoms had the advantage of speed, but were less maneuverable than their opponents. In addition, the requirement to protect the bombers and the restrictions placed on the rules of engagement prevented the American pilots from using their planes to their fullest potential. As time went on, the role of the Phantoms expanded to include support attacks and eventually the bombing of strategic targets.

===Operation Bolo===
The most famous (and one of the most successful) Phantom operation of the Vietnam War was [[Operation Bolo]], the brainchild of WWII [[Flying ace|ace]] Air Force Colonel Robin Olds. In response to the increasing MiG threat, an intricate ambush was planned, and on January 2, 1967, executed. 56 Phantoms, pretending to be a typical strike package, lured a dozen [[MiG-21]]s up to fight and shot down seven with no losses. A few days later, a smaller Phantom force repeated the trick and downed two more MiGs. As a result, North Vietnam's remaining MiG-21 force was out of action for three months while the pilots retrained and replacements were acquired.

==Phantoms over Israel==
The Phantom was first acquired by the Israeli Defense Forces in September 1969. Phantoms took part in the [[War of Attrition]], the [[Yom Kippur War]] (suffering heavy losses), and the 1982 war in [[Lebanon]]. The Phantom was used mainly as a fighter-bomber, although Israeli F-4s scored a total of 116.5 air-to-air kills.[http://home.att.net/~jBaugher1/f4_41.html] The Israeli name for the F-4 was the ''Kurnass'' (sledgehammer).

===War of Attrition===
Phantoms were thrown into combat almost as soon as they arrived. In late 1969, Israel was in middle of a conflict with [[Egypt]] that would later be known as the [[War of Attrition]]. The first Phantoms arrived on Sept 5, 1969, and the first operational mission of the Kurnass was a month and a half later, on October 22. The plane scored its first aerial victory for Israel three weeks later, when a Phantom of the 201 Squadron downed an Egyptian MiG-21 while on a combat air patrol.[http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Kills/FirstDown.IN.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=43&folderID=43&subfolderID=293&docfolderID=293&docID=1249&docType=ARTICLE]

One of the more prominent Phantom missions during the War of Attrition was on May 16, 1970. Eight F-4s, led by [[Six Day War]] veteran Aharon “Yalo” Shavit, flew to the Egyptian port of [[Ras Banas]] and sank an Egyptian destroyer in retaliation for the sinking of an Israeli patrol boat a few days earlier. It was the longest-range fighter-bomber mission taken by the IAF up to that time. Phantoms were also extensively used against Egyptian [[Surface-to-air Missile|SAM]] sites that year in what became known as Electronic Summer, in Wild Weasel-type missions using tactics developed by American pilots in the [[Vietnam War]].

The War of Attrition ended with a negotiated ceasefire in August. Half a dozen Phantoms had been lost to SAMs and anti-aircraft fire, and IAF Phantoms had shot down six Egyptian aircraft (five MiG-21s and an [[Ilyushin Il-28|Ilyushin jet bomber]]). The first loss of a Phantom in aerial combat happened on April 2, 1970, when a Syrian MiG-21 downed a Kurnass near Mt. Hermon.<ref>The pilot of the Fishbed was [[Bassam Hamshu]], who became an ace in the Yom Kippur War and ended his career with seven confirmed victories, including another Phantom.</ref>

===The Yom Kippur War===
When the Egyptian and [[Syria]]n air forces attacked on October 6, 1973, Israeli Phantoms bore the brunt of the initial strikes. Kurness units were hard-pressed, but scored 23 air-to-air victories that day, over a quarter of their total for the entire conflict. In what was probably the first aerial battle of the war, two Kurnass crews from 119 Squadron defended their base from 28 Egyptian fighters, destroying six [[MiG-17]]s and a MiG-21 between them. However, the other attackers managed to get through and bomb the base, cratering the runway and damaging facilities. Other Phantoms were scrambled to blunt the Arab ground advance, but ten of them were lost to SAMs and anti-aircraft fire in the first few hours. The F-4 made its biggest contribution for the day after dusk. With light fading, the Egyptians sent several Mi-8 helicopters loaded with commandos into the Sinai in an attempt to cause havoc in the Israeli rear areas. Two of these raids were smashed by Phantoms that shot down fourteen helicopters in all. One Kurnass crew accounted for five Mi-8s by themselves. IAF Mirages arrived later and destroyed more of the raiders.

Israeli commanders were confused at first by the sudden attack, so counterstrikes by the IAF over the next couple of days met with mixed success. Kurnasses shot down four Egyptian MiG-21s for no loss on the morning of October 7, but an attack on Syrian air defenses that afternoon was ineffective and cost the Israelis six more precious Phantoms. Another four were lost the next day (including one in air-to-air combat). In less than 72 hours, Israel had lost approximately one fifth of its Kurnass force and over a tenth of its Kurnass aircrews.

By the end of Day Four, however, the situation had stabilized. The Egyptian and Syrian offensives had been halted, and the IAF was able to poke holes in the SAM nets through which to attack. The F-4s were still hard-pressed, but only three were lost over the next four days. Over the same period, Kurnass crews shot down twelve MiG-21s and one MiG-17. Most of the fighting at this time took place over the Syrian front. After the first week of the war, the United States initiated [[Operation Nickel Grass]], an emergency resupply program for Israel that replaced the planes lost in combat. When the war ended two weeks later, Israel, and its Kurnass force, was battered but still intact. In addition to the literally hundreds of ground targets destroyed, Israeli Phantoms shot down 85 Arab combat aircraft, mostly MiG-21s, for a kill-loss ratio in aerial combat of 17-1 during the war.<ref>This is particularly impressive considering that in most situations, MiG-21 air defense fighters were intercepting bomb-laden Phantoms. IAF [[Dassault Mirage III|Mirages]] had a similar kill ratio for the YKW, but most of their victories were in situations where Mirages on air defense intercepted bomb-laden MiGs</ref>

===Post-Yom Kippur===
After the war ended, tensions were still high, and Phantoms saw combat again in the following year over both the Sinai and the Golan Heights, including aerial contests that ended with four MiGs shot down. When Israel bought its first [[F-15 Eagle]]s in 1976, the Kurnass was edged out of the air-to-air niche, and Kurnass crews only scored two and a half more aerial victories after the Eagle was introduced. However, the Phantom’s role was expanded with the acquisition of RF-4Es for reconnaissance. Israeli Phantoms were heavily involved in the fighting in Lebanon in mid-1982, successfully attacking several Syrian SAM sites and PLO facilities. One Phantom was lost to MiGs,<ref>But not in a fair fight. For some reason, the F-4 lost power in one of its engines, and as the crippled fighter tried to egress, the MiGs pounced. The crew was recovered safely.</ref> but another Kurnass crew downed a MiG-21 the next day.

By the mid-1980s, the Phantom was starting to get a little long in the tooth compared to the F-15, [[F-16]], and the newer MiGs in service at the time with many Arab air forces. The Kurnass 2000 project was initiated to give the Phantom a new lease on life, and 130 planes were re-equipped with new avionics and modifications to the hydraulic and fuel systems. Kurnass 2000s have seen action in Lebanon.

==Phantoms over Kuwait==
By the time of the [[Gulf War]], the Phantom had been mostly superseded in American service by the [[F-14 Tomcat|F-14]], F-15, and F-16. The USAF still used RF-4s for tactical reconnaissance, and sent a total of eighteen of them to the Coalition forces in [[Saudi Arabia]].

Playing a more prominent role were the Air Force’s F-4Gs, specialized for SAM-suppression. Phantoms from the 35th Tactical Fighter Wing flew with the airstrikes, destroying missile sites and radars with their [[AGM-45 Shrike|Shrike]] and HARM missiles when they threatened the strike aircraft. 250 Iraqi radars were destroyed in total, mostly by Phantoms. In spite of the risky nature of their mission, only one F-4G was lost in combat in the war, to anti-aircraft fire. The highest scoring F-4G crew were pilot Captain Vince Quinn and WSO Major Ken Spaar, who destroyed twelve SAM sites during their tour.

==Other Users==

* [[United Kingdom]]
* [[Australia]]
* [[Germany]]
* [[Spain]]
* [[Greece]]
* [[South Korea]]
* [[Japan]]
* [[Egypt]]
* [[Turkey]]
* [[Iran]]

==Notes==
<references/>

==Sources==
===Vietnam===
*[http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/McDonnell_Phantom_F-4_part3.html The Phantom in Vietnam]
*''Rolling Thunder: Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War'', by Ivan Rendall, Dell Publishing, 1997
*''Fast Movers: Jet Pilots and the Vietnam Experience'', by John Darrell Sherwood, St. Martin’s Press, 1999
*''Mig-21 Units of the Vietnam War'', by Istvan Toperczer, Osprey Publishing, 2001

===Israel===
*''Rolling Thunder: Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War'', by Ivan Rendall, Dell Publishing, 1997
*''Israeli F-4 Phantom II Aces'', by Shlomo Aloni, Osprey Publishing, 2004
*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/phantom.html JewishVirtualLibrary: F-4 Phantom II]
*''Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat'', by David Nicolle and Tom Cooper, Osprey Publishing, 2004

===Kuwait===
*''Desert Storm: Air War'', by Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1991
*''The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft'', ed. by Paul Eden, Amber Books, 2004
*[http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html Coalition Aircraft Combat Attrition]
*''Rolling Thunder: Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War'', by Ivan Rendall

[[Category:Military Aircraft]]
[[Category:United States Air Force]]
[[Category:United States Navy aircraft]]
[[Category:Vietnam War]]

F-4 Phantom

2012-02-01T12:55:50Z

GeorgeLi:

The '''McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II''' was a supersonic long-range all-weather fighter-bomber used by the [[United States]] military from 1960 to 1996.

It was the fighter and fighter-bomber used by the [[United States Air Force]], [[United States Navy|Navy]] and [[United States Marine Corps|Marines]] during the Vietnam war. It was used both by the Navy [[Blue Angels]] demonstration team and the Air Force [[Thunderbirds]].

Some are still in service with other nations who bought them from the United States.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom

Type: Supersonic fighter bomber

Powerplant: Two General Electric J79-GE-10 afterburning turbojet

Performance: Top speed 1500 mph

Dimensions: Wingspan 38 ft. 4 in. Length 58 ft 2 in.

Armament: One 20 millimeter Vulcan cannon (E and F models only<ref>Although other models could carry external gun pods.</ref>), and either four [[AIM-7 Sparrow]] missiles and four [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] missiles or 16,000 lb bombload.

==Phantoms over Vietnam==
The conflict most commonly associated with the F-4, at least by Americans, is the [[Vietnam War]]. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all flew Phantoms throughout the conflict. In the first part of the war, they were mainly tasked with escort duties.<ref>In the beginning, [[F-100 Super Sabre]]s flew escort missions, but they were found incapable of dealing with MiGs, and re-assigned.</ref> Consequently, most of the MiGs shot down over Vietnam, including the first ones, fell to Phantom-launched missiles. The Phantoms had the advantage of speed, but were less maneuverable than their opponents. In addition, the requirement to protect the bombers and the restrictions placed on the rules of engagement prevented the American pilots from using their planes to their fullest potential. As time went on, the role of the Phantoms expanded to include support attacks and eventually the bombing of strategic targets.

===Operation Bolo===
The most famous (and one of the most successful) Phantom operation of the Vietnam War was [[Operation Bolo]], the brainchild of WWII [[Flying ace|ace]] Air Force Colonel Robin Olds. In response to the increasing MiG threat, an intricate ambush was planned, and on January 2, 1967, executed. 56 Phantoms, pretending to be a typical strike package, lured a dozen [[MiG-21]]s up to fight and shot down seven with no losses. A few days later, a smaller Phantom force repeated the trick and downed two more MiGs. As a result, North Vietnam's remaining MiG-21 force was out of action for three months while the pilots retrained and replacements were acquired.

==Phantoms over Israel==
The Phantom was first acquired by the Israeli Defense Forces in September 1969. Phantoms took part in the [[War of Attrition]], the [[Yom Kippur War]] (suffering heavy losses), and the 1982 war in [[Lebanon]]. The Phantom was used mainly as a fighter-bomber, although Israeli F-4s scored a total of 116.5 air-to-air kills.[http://home.att.net/~jBaugher1/f4_41.html] The Israeli name for the F-4 was the ''Kurnass'' (sledgehammer).

===War of Attrition===
Phantoms were thrown into combat almost as soon as they arrived. In late 1969, Israel was in middle of a conflict with [[Egypt]] that would later be known as the [[War of Attrition]]. The first Phantoms arrived on Sept 5, 1969, and the first operational mission of the Kurnass was a month and a half later, on October 22. The plane scored its first aerial victory for Israel three weeks later, when a Phantom of the 201 Squadron downed an Egyptian MiG-21 while on a combat air patrol.[http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Kills/FirstDown.IN.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=43&folderID=43&subfolderID=293&docfolderID=293&docID=1249&docType=ARTICLE]

One of the more prominent Phantom missions during the War of Attrition was on May 16, 1970. Eight F-4s, led by [[Six Day War]] veteran Aharon “Yalo” Shavit, flew to the Egyptian port of [[Ras Banas]] and sank an Egyptian destroyer in retaliation for the sinking of an Israeli patrol boat a few days earlier. It was the longest-range fighter-bomber mission taken by the IAF up to that time. Phantoms were also extensively used against Egyptian [[Surface-to-air Missile|SAM]] sites that year in what became known as Electronic Summer, in Wild Weasel-type missions using tactics developed by American pilots in the [[Vietnam War]].

The War of Attrition ended with a negotiated ceasefire in August. Half a dozen Phantoms had been lost to SAMs and anti-aircraft fire, and IAF Phantoms had shot down six Egyptian aircraft (five MiG-21s and an [[Ilyushin Il-28|Ilyushin jet bomber]]). The first loss of a Phantom in aerial combat happened on April 2, 1970, when a Syrian MiG-21 downed a Kurnass near Mt. Hermon.<ref>The pilot of the Fishbed was [[Bassam Hamshu]], who became an ace in the Yom Kippur War and ended his career with seven confirmed victories, including another Phantom.</ref>

===The Yom Kippur War===
When the Egyptian and [[Syria]]n air forces attacked on October 6, 1973, Israeli Phantoms bore the brunt of the initial strikes. Kurness units were hard-pressed, but scored 23 air-to-air victories that day, over a quarter of their total for the entire conflict. In what was probably the first aerial battle of the war, two Kurnass crews from 119 Squadron defended their base from 28 Egyptian fighters, destroying six [[MiG-17]]s and a MiG-21 between them. However, the other attackers managed to get through and bomb the base, cratering the runway and damaging facilities. Other Phantoms were scrambled to blunt the Arab ground advance, but ten of them were lost to SAMs and anti-aircraft fire in the first few hours. The F-4 made its biggest contribution for the day after dusk. With light fading, the Egyptians sent several Mi-8 helicopters loaded with commandos into the Sinai in an attempt to cause havoc in the Israeli rear areas. Two of these raids were smashed by Phantoms that shot down fourteen helicopters in all. One Kurnass crew accounted for five Mi-8s by themselves. IAF Mirages arrived later and destroyed more of the raiders.

Israeli commanders were confused at first by the sudden attack, so counterstrikes by the IAF over the next couple of days met with mixed success. Kurnasses shot down four Egyptian MiG-21s for no loss on the morning of October 7, but an attack on Syrian air defenses that afternoon was ineffective and cost the Israelis six more precious Phantoms. Another four were lost the next day (including one in air-to-air combat). In less than 72 hours, Israel had lost approximately one fifth of its Kurnass force and over a tenth of its Kurnass aircrews.

By the end of Day Four, however, the situation had stabilized. The Egyptian and Syrian offensives had been halted, and the IAF was able to poke holes in the SAM nets through which to attack. The F-4s were still hard-pressed, but only three were lost over the next four days. Over the same period, Kurnass crews shot down twelve MiG-21s and one MiG-17. Most of the fighting at this time took place over the Syrian front. After the first week of the war, the United States initiated [[Operation Nickel Grass]], an emergency resupply program for Israel that replaced the planes lost in combat. When the war ended two weeks later, Israel, and its Kurnass force, was battered but still intact. In addition to the literally hundreds of ground targets destroyed, Israeli Phantoms shot down 85 Arab combat aircraft, mostly MiG-21s, for a kill-loss ratio in aerial combat of 17-1 during the war.<ref>This is particularly impressive considering that in most situations, MiG-21 air defense fighters were intercepting bomb-laden Phantoms. IAF [[Dassault Mirage III|Mirages]] had a similar kill ratio for the YKW, but most of their victories were in situations where Mirages on air defense intercepted bomb-laden MiGs</ref>

===Post-Yom Kippur===
After the war ended, tensions were still high, and Phantoms saw combat again in the following year over both the Sinai and the Golan Heights, including aerial contests that ended with four MiGs shot down. When Israel bought its first [[F-15 Eagle]]s in 1976, the Kurnass was edged out of the air-to-air niche, and Kurnass crews only scored two and a half more aerial victories after the Eagle was introduced. However, the Phantom’s role was expanded with the acquisition of RF-4Es for reconnaissance. Israeli Phantoms were heavily involved in the fighting in Lebanon in mid-1982, successfully attacking several Syrian SAM sites and PLO facilities. One Phantom was lost to MiGs,<ref>But not in a fair fight. For some reason, the F-4 lost power in one of its engines, and as the crippled fighter tried to egress, the MiGs pounced. The crew was recovered safely.</ref> but another Kurnass crew downed a MiG-21 the next day.

By the mid-1980s, the Phantom was starting to get a little long in the tooth compared to the F-15, [[F-16]], and the newer MiGs in service at the time with many Arab air forces. The Kurnass 2000 project was initiated to give the Phantom a new lease on life, and 130 planes were re-equipped with new avionics and modifications to the hydraulic and fuel systems. Kurnass 2000s have seen action in Lebanon.

==Phantoms over Kuwait==
By the time of the [[Gulf War]], the Phantom had been mostly superseded in American service by the [[F-14 Tomcat|F-14]], F-15, and F-16. The USAF still used RF-4s for tactical reconnaissance, and sent a total of eighteen of them to the Coalition forces in [[Saudi Arabia]].

Playing a more prominent role were the Air Force’s F-4Gs, specialized for SAM-suppression. Phantoms from the 35th Tactical Fighter Wing flew with the airstrikes, destroying missile sites and radars with their [[AGM-45 Shrike|Shrike]] and HARM missiles when they threatened the strike aircraft. 250 Iraqi radars were destroyed in total, mostly by Phantoms. In spite of the risky nature of their mission, only one F-4G was lost in combat in the war, to anti-aircraft fire. The highest scoring F-4G crew were pilot Captain Vince Quinn and WSO Major Ken Spaar, who destroyed twelve SAM sites during their tour.

==Notes==
<references/>

==Sources==
===Vietnam===
*[http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/McDonnell_Phantom_F-4_part3.html The Phantom in Vietnam]
*''Rolling Thunder: Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War'', by Ivan Rendall, Dell Publishing, 1997
*''Fast Movers: Jet Pilots and the Vietnam Experience'', by John Darrell Sherwood, St. Martin’s Press, 1999
*''Mig-21 Units of the Vietnam War'', by Istvan Toperczer, Osprey Publishing, 2001

===Israel===
*''Rolling Thunder: Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War'', by Ivan Rendall, Dell Publishing, 1997
*''Israeli F-4 Phantom II Aces'', by Shlomo Aloni, Osprey Publishing, 2004
*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/phantom.html JewishVirtualLibrary: F-4 Phantom II]
*''Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat'', by David Nicolle and Tom Cooper, Osprey Publishing, 2004

===Kuwait===
*''Desert Storm: Air War'', by Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1991
*''The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft'', ed. by Paul Eden, Amber Books, 2004
*[http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html Coalition Aircraft Combat Attrition]
*''Rolling Thunder: Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War'', by Ivan Rendall

[[Category:Military Aircraft]]
[[Category:United States Air Force]]
[[Category:United States Navy aircraft]]
[[Category:Vietnam War]]

F-14 Tomcat

2012-02-01T12:55:16Z

GeorgeLi: /* Retirement */ Never used by USAF.

[[Image:DesertStormF14ATomcatburningtarget.JPG|250px||thumb|A Tomcat fies over a burning Iraqi oil complex during [[Desert Storm]].]]
The '''Grumman F-14 Tomcat''' is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-seat fighter designed to attack and destroy enemy aircraft at night or day, and in all weather conditions. Carrier-based, the Tomcat has variable geometry wings for easy storage and increased speed or manoeuvrability. Until its retirement in 2006, it was the primary air-superiority fighter for the [[U.S. Navy]]. It was the only airplane that could operate the long-range Phoenix air-to-air missile. In addition, it could carry [[AIM-7 Sparrow]] and [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] missiles, and carried an internal Vulcan 20mm cannon.

==Design==

In the 1950s, the [[United States Navy|Navy]] was in the market for a high-tech air superiority fighter which could kill Russian "Bear" and "Badger" bombers hundreds of miles away from the carrier, before the Soviet aircraft could fire cruise missiles at the ship. The General Dynamics [[F-111]] program was cancelled by the Navy (it was continued by the Air Force). In 1969, the Navy selected Grumman's prototype. The aircraft was designed to make obsolete, in matters of electronics and armament, every other fighter in the world. The F-14 was equipped to carry up to six [[AIM-54 Phoenix]] missiles with over a hundred-mile range. The radar was sophisticated enough to pick six targets from over 30 planes.

Because of the Tomcat's size, and the view it presented when seen from above, pilots jokingly called the plane the "Flying tennis court".

==Service==

The F-14 began replacing the [[F-4 Phantom]] II in U.S. naval service in September of 1974.<ref>''Fighter'', by Jim Winchester, 2006</ref> It first saw combat over the [[Gulf of Sidra]], off the coast of [[Libya]], in August of 1981. Two Tomcats shot down two Libyan [[Sukhoi Su-22|Su-22 Fitters]] after one of the Fitters had fired a missile at them.<ref>''Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy'', by Craig L. Symonds, 1995</ref> In January of 1989, F-14s again saw action against Libyan planes, this time two F-14s downed two [[MiG-23]] Floggers off [[Tobruk]].<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956731-2,00.html Article in Time Magazine]</ref>

F-14s were also active over the [[Persian Gulf]] when the US was escorting oil tankers in [[Operation Earnest Will]]. On August 8, 1987, an [[Iran]]ian F-4 Phantom, a type which had been involved in strikes on shipping before, get a little close and two F-14s from the USS ''Constellation'' fired two Sparrow missiles. One missile malfunctioned, and the Phantom crew evaded the other and escaped.<ref>''Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat'', by Farzad Bishop and Tom Cooper, Osprey Publishing, 2003</ref>

During the [[Gulf War]], F-14s were mainly involved in standing combat air patrols over the fleet and escorting strike packages. One Tomcat was shot down by an Iraqi [[Surface-to-air missile|SAM]], the RIO being captured, but the pilot was rescued. On February 6, 1991, a Navy pilot off the USS ''Ranger'' scored the F-14’s final air-to-air victory ever in this conflict, an Mi-8 helicopter.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-combat.htm F-14 Tomcat Combat]</ref> Coincidentally, the F-14’s very first air-to-air victory was also an Iraqi helicopter, shot down by an Iranian Tomcat in the first days of the [[Iran-Iraq War]].

[[Image:F-14 Phoenix.jpg|thumb|300 px|right|An F-14 shows off six Phoenix missiles.]]

==The Tomcat in popular culture==

The Tomcat had a gift for show business. Its first movie appearance was in ''[[The Final Countdown]]'' in 1980, where the [[USS Nimitz|USS ''Nimitz'']] goes back in time to December 7, 1941. However, ''[[Top Gun]]'' made the Tomcat a star.

The movie ''Top Gun'' was supposed to star [[Tom Cruise]] and [[Kelly McGillis]]. The way it worked out, though, it had the F-14 as the star, and relegated Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis to supporting roles.

The F-14 performed equally well on the small screen, frequently guest-starring on the TV series [[JAG (TV series)|''JAG'']] and playing a supporting role on the [[anime]] series ''[[Area 88]].''

==Retirement==

The Tomcat has been replaced by newer planes in the [[United States]] Navy. In order to prevent spare parts reaching the Iranian Air Force ([[Iran]] uses those planes based on purchases of 80 Tomcats and 633 [[AIM-54 Phoenix]] missiles they made under the [[Shah]]), the United States government is having the planes destroyed.

Type: Two-seat carrier-borne fighter

Powerplant: Two 20,900 lb. thrust Pratt & Whitney afterburning turbojets

Performance: Mach 2.34 (1564 mph) at altitude

Weight: (empty) 39,310 lbs. (normal take-off) 58,539 lbs.

Dimensions: Wingspan(unswept) 64 ft. (Swept) 38 ft. Length- 61 ft. Height- 16 ft.

Armament: 1 General Electric M61A-1 20 millimeter multi barrel Vulcan cannon with 675 rounds, and either

6 Hughes [[AIM-54 Phoenix ]] missiles

4 Hughes [[AIM-54 Phoenix]] missiles and 2 [[AIM-7 Sparrow]] missiles or 2 [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] missiles

2 Hughes [[AIM-54 Phoenix]] missiles, 2 [[AIM-7 Sparrow]] missiles, and 2 [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] missiles

Current operators: Iran

Previous operators: US Navy, US Marine Corps

==External links==
*[http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/mats/combat.htm F-14 Tomcat in Combat]
*[http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm F-14 Tomcat at FAS]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Military Aircraft]]
[[Category:United States Navy aircraft]]

F-14 Tomcat

2012-02-01T12:54:52Z

GeorgeLi: I don't think terrorists are all that interested in aircraft spares.

[[Image:DesertStormF14ATomcatburningtarget.JPG|250px||thumb|A Tomcat fies over a burning Iraqi oil complex during [[Desert Storm]].]]
The '''Grumman F-14 Tomcat''' is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-seat fighter designed to attack and destroy enemy aircraft at night or day, and in all weather conditions. Carrier-based, the Tomcat has variable geometry wings for easy storage and increased speed or manoeuvrability. Until its retirement in 2006, it was the primary air-superiority fighter for the [[U.S. Navy]]. It was the only airplane that could operate the long-range Phoenix air-to-air missile. In addition, it could carry [[AIM-7 Sparrow]] and [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] missiles, and carried an internal Vulcan 20mm cannon.

==Design==

In the 1950s, the [[United States Navy|Navy]] was in the market for a high-tech air superiority fighter which could kill Russian "Bear" and "Badger" bombers hundreds of miles away from the carrier, before the Soviet aircraft could fire cruise missiles at the ship. The General Dynamics [[F-111]] program was cancelled by the Navy (it was continued by the Air Force). In 1969, the Navy selected Grumman's prototype. The aircraft was designed to make obsolete, in matters of electronics and armament, every other fighter in the world. The F-14 was equipped to carry up to six [[AIM-54 Phoenix]] missiles with over a hundred-mile range. The radar was sophisticated enough to pick six targets from over 30 planes.

Because of the Tomcat's size, and the view it presented when seen from above, pilots jokingly called the plane the "Flying tennis court".

==Service==

The F-14 began replacing the [[F-4 Phantom]] II in U.S. naval service in September of 1974.<ref>''Fighter'', by Jim Winchester, 2006</ref> It first saw combat over the [[Gulf of Sidra]], off the coast of [[Libya]], in August of 1981. Two Tomcats shot down two Libyan [[Sukhoi Su-22|Su-22 Fitters]] after one of the Fitters had fired a missile at them.<ref>''Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy'', by Craig L. Symonds, 1995</ref> In January of 1989, F-14s again saw action against Libyan planes, this time two F-14s downed two [[MiG-23]] Floggers off [[Tobruk]].<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956731-2,00.html Article in Time Magazine]</ref>

F-14s were also active over the [[Persian Gulf]] when the US was escorting oil tankers in [[Operation Earnest Will]]. On August 8, 1987, an [[Iran]]ian F-4 Phantom, a type which had been involved in strikes on shipping before, get a little close and two F-14s from the USS ''Constellation'' fired two Sparrow missiles. One missile malfunctioned, and the Phantom crew evaded the other and escaped.<ref>''Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat'', by Farzad Bishop and Tom Cooper, Osprey Publishing, 2003</ref>

During the [[Gulf War]], F-14s were mainly involved in standing combat air patrols over the fleet and escorting strike packages. One Tomcat was shot down by an Iraqi [[Surface-to-air missile|SAM]], the RIO being captured, but the pilot was rescued. On February 6, 1991, a Navy pilot off the USS ''Ranger'' scored the F-14’s final air-to-air victory ever in this conflict, an Mi-8 helicopter.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-combat.htm F-14 Tomcat Combat]</ref> Coincidentally, the F-14’s very first air-to-air victory was also an Iraqi helicopter, shot down by an Iranian Tomcat in the first days of the [[Iran-Iraq War]].

[[Image:F-14 Phoenix.jpg|thumb|300 px|right|An F-14 shows off six Phoenix missiles.]]

==The Tomcat in popular culture==

The Tomcat had a gift for show business. Its first movie appearance was in ''[[The Final Countdown]]'' in 1980, where the [[USS Nimitz|USS ''Nimitz'']] goes back in time to December 7, 1941. However, ''[[Top Gun]]'' made the Tomcat a star.

The movie ''Top Gun'' was supposed to star [[Tom Cruise]] and [[Kelly McGillis]]. The way it worked out, though, it had the F-14 as the star, and relegated Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis to supporting roles.

The F-14 performed equally well on the small screen, frequently guest-starring on the TV series [[JAG (TV series)|''JAG'']] and playing a supporting role on the [[anime]] series ''[[Area 88]].''

==Retirement==

The Tomcat has been replaced by newer planes in the [[United States]] Air Force. In order to prevent spare parts reaching the Iranian Air Force ([[Iran]] uses those planes based on purchases of 80 Tomcats and 633 [[AIM-54 Phoenix]] missiles they made under the [[Shah]]), the United States government is having the planes destroyed.

Type: Two-seat carrier-borne fighter

Powerplant: Two 20,900 lb. thrust Pratt & Whitney afterburning turbojets

Performance: Mach 2.34 (1564 mph) at altitude

Weight: (empty) 39,310 lbs. (normal take-off) 58,539 lbs.

Dimensions: Wingspan(unswept) 64 ft. (Swept) 38 ft. Length- 61 ft. Height- 16 ft.

Armament: 1 General Electric M61A-1 20 millimeter multi barrel Vulcan cannon with 675 rounds, and either

6 Hughes [[AIM-54 Phoenix ]] missiles

4 Hughes [[AIM-54 Phoenix]] missiles and 2 [[AIM-7 Sparrow]] missiles or 2 [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] missiles

2 Hughes [[AIM-54 Phoenix]] missiles, 2 [[AIM-7 Sparrow]] missiles, and 2 [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] missiles

Current operators: Iran

Previous operators: US Navy, US Marine Corps

==External links==
*[http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/mats/combat.htm F-14 Tomcat in Combat]
*[http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm F-14 Tomcat at FAS]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Military Aircraft]]
[[Category:United States Navy aircraft]]

Falkland Islands

2012-01-31T23:23:39Z

GeorgeLi: /* Sovereignty */

{{Country
|name=Falkland Islands
|map=Falkland islands.png
|map2=Falkland Islands1.png
|flag=Flag of the Falkland Islands svg.png
|arms=Coa Falkland svg.png
|capital=Stanley
|government=British overseas territory
|language=English
|area=4700 sq mi
|pop=3060
|pop-basis=July 2005 estimate
|gdp=$75 million
|gdp-year=2005
|gdp-pc=$25000
|currency=Falkland pound
|idd=+500
|tld=.fk}}
The '''Falkland Islands''' are a small group of islands situated in the South Atlantic Ocean, 300 miles from the coast of [[Argentina]]. The two major islands, West and East Falkland, are separated by Falkland Sound. There are numerous smaller islands. The capital is Stanley, on East Falkland. The islands are known as the "Islas Malvinas" to the Argentines.

==Sovereignty==

The Islands have been a territory of the [[United Kingdom]] for 170 years, but the British claim to sovereignty is disputed by Argentina. A war was fought over the issue when Argentina seized the islands on April 2nd, 1982 without warning. Argentina was run by a military junta at that time and was experiencing a time of economic difficulties and social unrest at home. The new government in Argentina saw a recapturing of the peaceful Falklands as a perfect solution to the social problems that were happening at the time.

The British, under [[Margaret Thatcher]], put together a naval expedition to travel half way around the world and retake the islands. Strenuous diplomatic efforts were made to resolve the issue, and the Argentines were given a great deal of time to solve the conflict peacefully as the British slowly came closer, but their refusal to recognise the Islands' right of self-determination forced the British to use military force to expel the invaders. British long-range air attacks (against the Islands' airport, then being used by the Argentinian air force) did not begin until 1st May, a month after the initial Argentinian invasion, with the naval battle beginning the following day.

By the time the British naval fleet had arrived at the Falklands, there were several positions on the map where Argentinean soldiers had been positioned, most notably at the capital where there were 10,000 Argentinean soldiers fortified. 4,000 British Army soldiers and Royal Marines disembarked from Royal Navy vessels on 21st May and progressed on foot across East Falkland, fighting several battles on the way before capturing Stanley. On June 15th, the Falkland Islanders were liberated and the islands were returned to British control.

255 British servicemen and three islanders lost their lives in the war, with many of the British casualties being suffered in air attacks on British ships (five British ships were sunk and others damaged by bombs and French-built [[Exocet]] missiles). The Argentinian government officially states that 655 of its servicemen lost their lives (half of those in the sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano), although this figure has been questioned.

The embarrassing defeat for Argentina helped to hasten the downfall of the military government while in Britain Thatcher's [[Conservative Party]] surged to victory in the general election the following year.

Argentina maintains its claim to the islands<ref>[http://www.argentina.gov.ar/argentina/portal/paginas.dhtml?pagina=4196 List of argentinian provinces]. The official government site of Argentina lists "Islas Malvinas" among the provinces, like "Buenos Aires" or "Chubut"</ref>, although it has not tried to take them by force again. Since the war, Britain has declined Argentinian requests for sovereignty talks. Prior to the war, the British Government had considered handing the territory over to the Argentines, but didn't want to go against the will of the people who lived there, who wanted the Falkland Islands to remain British. France and Spain have previously laid claim to the islands.

==Economy==
The Falklands economy is based largely on fishing, although recently evidence of oil deposits around the islands has suggested the possibility of an economic revolution.

==Government==
The elected legislative and executive councils are chaired by the Governor, who is appointed by the UK government. Military and Foreign affairs are the direct responsibility of the [[United Kingdom|British]] government.
[[Image:Boot Hill South Atlantic.jpg|left|thumb|250px|"Boot Hill": When an islander leaves the Falklands, it is tradition to leave an item of footwear behind.]]

==Links==
*[http://www.falklandnews.com/ Falkland Islands News Network]

== References ==
<references />

[[category:South America]]
[[Category:Archipelagos]]

USS Phoenix (CL-46)

2012-01-31T23:21:09Z

GeorgeLi: /* Falklands War */

{{Ship
| name=USS ''Phoenix'' (CL-46) ARA ''General Belgrano'' (C-4)
| image=USSPhoenix.jpg
| caption=
| flag-raw=[[File:48 star flag.png|40px]] [[Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.png|30px]] [[File:Flag of Argentina.png|40px]] [[Image:Naval Jack of Argentina.png|25px]]
| flag-caption=
| owner=United States Navy Armada de la República Argentina
| built=William Cramp & Sons Shipbuilding Company Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| authorized=
| keellaid=15 April 1935
| launched=13 March 1938
| commissioned=3 October 1938 (USN) 17 October 1951 (ARA)
| retired=
| status=Sunk during the [[Falklands War]] 2 May 1982
| type=Light cruiser ''Brooklyn''-class
| displ=9,575 t
| length=608.3 ft
| beam=61.8 ft
| draft=19 ft 6 in
| speed=32.5 knots
| test=
| armament=Fifteen 6"/47 cal (152 mm) main guns Eight 5"/25 cal (127 mm) anti-aircraft guns
| crew=1,138 officers and men
| troops=
| pass=
|}
}}
'''USS ''Phoenix''''' (CL-46) was a cruiser of the [[United States Navy]] during [[World War II]], as well as service under the navy of [[Argentina]] until May, 1982, when it was sunk during the [[Falklands War]].

==History==
The third ship to bear the name, ''Phoenix'' was laid down 15 April 1935 by the New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, New Jersey. She was launched 13 March 1938 and commissioned at Philadelphia Navy Yard 3 October 1938, Captain John W. Rankin in command.

After shakedown took her to Port of Spain, Trinidad; Santos, Brazil; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Montevideo, Uruguay; and San Juan, Puerto Rico; the new cruiser returned to Philadelphia in January 1939. ''Phoenix'' then operated off the West Coast and was later based at [[Pearl Harbor]] where the fateful morning of December 7, 1941 found her anchored southeast of Ford Island, near hospital ship Solace. Observers on board ''Phoenix'' sighted the rising sun of Japan on strange planes coming in low over Ford Island and a few seconds later the ship’s guns took them under fire. ''Phoenix'' escaped the disaster unharmed and, shortly after noon, was underway to join light cruisers ''St. Louis'' (CL–49) and ''Detroit'' (CL–8) and several destroyers in an impromptu task force to search for the enemy carriers.

''Phoenix'' next escorted the first convoy to the United States from Pearl Harbor after the attack and returned at once with another convoy. After a month of convoy duty between the United States and Hawaii, she departed San Francisco with a force bound for Melbourne, Australia. For some time the cruiser operated in Australian waters escorting troop ships, once steaming as far north as Java. While ''Phoenix'' was steaming toward Ceylon in February 1942, with a convoy which included seaplane tender ''Langley'' and British ship ''Seawitch'', these ships were ordered to leave the convoy and proceed at top speed to Java with precious airplanes needed to stem the Japanese invasion of the Netherlands East Indies. ''Langley'' was attacked and sunk by Japanese planes 27 February and ''Seawitch'' escaped the same fate only by being too slow to keep up with the carrier. During the following months, ''Phoenix'' patrolled in the Indian Ocean, escorted a convoy to Bombay, and was present at the evacuation of Java.

Phoenix departed Brisbane, Australia, for overhaul in the Philadelphia Navy Yard in July 1943 before carrying Secretary of State Cordell Hull to Casablanca. She was then assigned to the 7th Fleet and sailed for the South Pacific.

====South Pacific service====
On 26 December, in company with the light crusier ''Nashville'' (CL–43), she bombarded the Cape Gloucester area of New Britain smashing shore installations in a four-hour shelling. ''Phoenix'' covered landing forces as they went ashore and furnished support fire against enemy strong points which had not been demolished. On the night of 25–26 January 1944, the ship took part in a night raid on Madang and Alexishafen, New Guinea, shelling shore installations. ''Phoenix'' then moved to the Admiralty Islands to support the 1st Cavalry Division in a reconnaissance in force on Los Negros Island 29 February. When the troops went ashore after the prelanding bombardment, enemy resistance was so weak that a withdrawal was not necessary and the island was occupied.

On 4 and 7 March 1944, ''Phoenix'', ''Nashville'', and Australian heavy cruiser ''Shropshire'' bombarded Hauwei Island of the Admiralty Group. Enemy guns on this island had threatened Allied positions in the Admiralties, particularly on Manus; and, although return fire from the beach was heavy, enemy batteries ceased firing when shells from the cruisers burst in their vicinity.

Hollandia, New Guinea, was next to fall to the mounting amphibious offensive. This largest assault till then undertaken by our forces was launched by 200 ships. ''Phoenix'' shelled the shore in the Humboldt Bay–Hollandia area as the troops went ashore 22 April; and supported them as they consolidated their gains and prepared for further attacks along the northwest coast of the big island. ''Phoenix'' shelled airdromes and plane dispersal areas at Wakde and Sawar on the night of 29–30 April to neutralize the danger of air attack on newly-won Allied positions on New Guinea.

General [[Douglas MacArthur]]’s troops next landed at Arare, 17 May to secure airdromes to support further operations in the Netherlands New Guinea area. This beachhead was later extended to include Wadke Island by a shore to shore movement of troops. ''Phoenix'' bombarded the Toem area and escorted the troops to the landing beach. An amphibious assault on Biak Island, Geelvink Bay, followed. There MacArthur planned to establish a forward base for heavy bombers. With ''Nashville'' and light cruiser ''Boise'' (CL–47), ''Phoenix'' sortied from Humboldt Bay 25 May and two days later supported the landing. Resistance was stubborn. While the task force fired on shore installations, two of the escorting destroyers were hit by shells from shore batteries. ''Phoenix'' wiped out the gun emplacement with two salvos from her 5-inch batteries.

On 4 June, off the northwest coast of New Guinea, eight Japanese fighter bombers attacked ''Phoenix’s'' task force. Two confined their attention to ''Phoenix''. Although the ship’s gunfire did not hit the planes, it diverted their bomb runs. Both planes dropped bombs, one of which burst in the water close aboard ''Phoenix'' killing one man and wounding four others with fragments. The ship also suffered some underwater leakage and damage to her propellers. The following night, aircraft again attacked Phoenix. This time low-flying torpedo planes struck as she proceeded through Japen Strait, between Biak Island and New Guinea; but her gunfire and evasive tactics prevented damage.

''Phoenix'' and her task force frustrated an enemy attempt to reinforce their garrisons on the night of 8–9 June. When they contacted the American ships, the Japanese destroyers turned and fled at such high speed that only one U.S. destroyer division was able to get within firing range. After a running fight of three hours at long range, ''Phoenix'' and her sisters broke off action.

With ''Boise'' and ten destroyers, ''Phoenix'' sortied from Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties and bombarded shore defenses before our forces landed on Noemfoor Island 2 July. After the battle, many dead Japanese and wrecked planes were found in the target area assigned to ''Phoenix''.

''Boise'', ''Nashville'', ''Shropshire'', ''Phoenix'' and heavy cruiser HMAS ''Australia'' joined for the occupation of Morotai, in the Molucca Islands, 15 September 1944. The cruisers shelled nearby Halmahera Island to cover the landing and protected the assault forces as they went ashore against continuing light opposition.

====Phillipines====
The long-awaited reconquest of the [[Philippines]] began with the landing on Leyte. ''Phoenix'', attached to the Close Covering Group, heavily bombarded the beaches before the highly successful landing 20 October. Her batteries silenced an enemy strong point holding up the advance of a battalion of the 19th Infantry Regiment and continued to furnish effective callfire.

In the now-famous [[Battle for Leyte Gulf]], ''Phoenix'' was a unit of Admiral Oldendorf’s group which annihilated the Japanese Southern Force as it passed through Surigao Strait. ''Phoenix'' fired four spotting salvoes, and when the fourth hit opened up with all of her 6-inch batteries. The target later proved to be the Japanese battleship ''Fuso'', which sank after 27 minutes. The enemy also lost another battleship and three destroyers, and American planes sank a damaged cruiser the next day. ''Phoenix'' then patrolled the mouth of Leyte Gulf to protect Allied positions ashore. On the morning of 1 November ten enemy torpedo-bombers attacked her and accompanying ships. At 0945 ''Phoenix'' opened fire and five minutes later destroyer ''Claxton'' was hit by a suicide plane. Almost at the same instant, hits from ''Phoenix’s'' 5-inch guns set another plane afire but could not prevent it from diving into destroyer ''Ammens’'' starboard bow. At 0957 a plane making a a torpedo run on ''Phoenix'' was splashed by the ship’s machinegun fire, but in a few minutes a bomber hit a third destroyer, ''Killen''.

After a lull of two and a half hours enemy planes returned, and, at 1340, scored a hit on destroyer ''Abner Read''. Japanese aircraft attacked the other destroyers as they stood by the sinking ship, but ''Phoenix'' shot down one of the raiders.

''Phoenix'' was attacked again by enemy planes on 5 December and was credited with assisting in the destruction of two attackers. Five days later a suicide plane attempted to crash the ship but was brought down by 40-millimeter fire when only 100 yards away. While proceeding to the assault area off Mindoro 13 December, the ship was constantly under air attack by single suicide planes. That day a lone kamikaze hit nearby cruiser ''Nashville''. On the 15th a 5-inch shell from ''Phoenix'' brought down a circling plane at 8,500 yards. The ship then furnished her usual fire support and covered the landing forces. This gave the Allies a base from which to strike at Japan’s shipping lanes through the South China Sea and to soften up Luzon for forthcoming landings.

En route Lingayen Gulf for the invasion of Luzon, lookouts on board ''Phoenix'' sighted the conning tower of a diving submarine in the Mindanao Sea off Siquijor Island. The submarine submerged and fired two torpedoes which ''Phoenix'' dodged. Destroyer ''Taylor'' (DD–468) blew the midget sub to the surface and rammed her.

Next came Bataan and Corregidor, taken 13 to 28 February 1945. ''Phoenix'' covered minesweeping operations at Balikpapan, Borneo, from 29 June until 7 July 1945. Resistance from coastal guns was unusually heavy. Mines and shellfire sank or damaged 11 minesweepers. ''Phoenix'' furnished supporting fire and the assault waves landed.

==End of service==
''Phoenix'' was en route to Pearl Harbor for overhaul when Japan capitulated. She headed home and, upon reaching the Panama Canal 6 September, joined the Atlantic Fleet. Her status was reduced to in commission in reserve at Philadelphia 28 February 1946. She decommissioned there 3 July 1946, and remained at Philadelphia until transferred to [[Argentina]] on 9 April 1951. ''Phoenix'' earned nine battle stars for World War II service.

==Argentina service==
She was commissioned in the Argentine Navy as ''17 de Octubre'' (CL–4) on 17 October 1951. Renamed ''General Belgrano'' in 1956 after independence hero General Manuel Belgrano, she served as the flagship of the Argentina navy for many years. A showpiece much like [[HMS Hood|HMS ''Hood'']] had been to the British a generation before, ''General Belgrano'' represented Argentina as a naval ambassador worldwide, her crew taking pride in presenting the ship in the best possible shape and appearance at all times.

====Falklands War====
[[Image:Belgrano sinking.jpg|200px|thumb|right|ARA ''General Belgrano'' sinking during the [[Falklands War]], May 2, 1982]]
For years Argentina had claimed the British-held Falkland Islands as part of its territory, and had continued negotiations for transferring the islands to Argentine control, to no avail. On April 2, 1982, the military junta who controlled Argentina invaded the islands, effectively taking possession in a matter of days and sparking the undeclared [[Falklands War]]. British prime minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] ordered a 200-mile exclusion zone around the islands, mainly for the benefit of neutral shipping. The Argentinian government was made aware of Britain's rules of engagement on April 23 by a message sent through the Swiss embassy in Buenos Aires, which read:
<blockquote>In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.</blockquote>

On April 26, ''General Belgrano'' and her escorts were ordered to the area to patrol the sea to the south of the islands; on April 30 they were sighted and tracked by HMS ''Conqueror'', a British nuclear-powered attack submarine. Although outside the exclusion zone and sailing away, ''Conqueror'' determined ''General Belgrano'' to be a threat in accordance with the rules of engagement and fired three torpedoes; one blew off the bow of the ship, a second hit amidships. The third torpedo missed. ''General Belgrano'' sank in less than thirty minutes. 321 crew members and two civilians died, while 770 were rescued during the next two days.

Despite some public controversy following the sinking, the official position of the Argentinian Navy is that it was a legitimate act of war as the ship was engaged in an operation directed against the British task force.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8965405/Belgrano-was-heading-to-the-Falklands-secret-papers-reveal.html</ref>

''Text taken in part from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, a work in the public domain.''

[[Category:World War II]][[Category:Cruisers]][[Category:Warships]][[Category:United States Navy]][[Category:Argentina]]

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T07:52:14Z

GeorgeLi: /* gravitationally bound and unbound objects */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===digression on atomic weights & ''ad hominems''===

:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===gravitationally bound and unbound objects===

::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bly) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bly away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::So the distances are constantly changing, correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Between unbound objects, yes. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Ok. So that has nothing to do with atomic weight of hydrogen, does it? And we don't have to revisit that issue again, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::No, it doesn't. I used atomic numbers (not atomic weights - they're different) as an example of how some things are constant, because you said that everything is constantly changing. The fact is that many things are NOT constantly changing, and one of them is the speed of light. We know that it ''isn't'' changing because various measurements have been done, and we know that it ''can't'' change because of conservation of energy and E=mc2. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Good. We're clarifying much here. When it is postulated, "the universe is expanding", that ''only'' refers to space, not matter, am I reading that correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Depends what you mean. Existing matter is not expanding. New matter is not appearing from nowhere. However matter is just a kind of energy, and sometimes other forms of energy can convert into matter. So the amount of matter does fluctuate a bit, but the overall energy remains constant. Weirdly, thanks to gravity being negative energy, it remains constant at a value of zero. Who said it had to make sense? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::That makes sense and I believe it. Let's return to unbound objects. The space expansion means distance expansion between unbound objects. Is there space expansion and/or changing distances between unbound and bound objects? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:57, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::Well yes. Distance is just a word for the size of dimensions in space. Like I said earlier, if you're a megaparsec away from something and not gravitationally bound to it the distance is increasing at about 74 km/s. However between bound objects there is no expansion. Distances might change, but only because of normal motion. Even Newtonian mechanics gives a good approximation of that. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::: A group of bound objects, like a galaxy, will experience expansion relative to other galaxies to which it is not gravitationally bound. That is why we see far away galaxies expanding away from us, but not the galaxies in our Local Group. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 23:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::In fact we're bound all the way out to the Virgo Supercluster, if I remember correctly. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The earth and moon are bound objects whose distance apart is relatively unchanging in an expanding universe, whereas the earth and unbound object K, measurable at a distance of L light years this evening, will be at M light years + 45 miles x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours tomorrow evening at this same time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:27, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::It'll be at L plus 45 miles x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours tomorrow evening at this same time, yes. Nearly 4 million miles farther away. The distance between us and the Sun in 23 days, and accelerating because more distance means more expansion. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 02:52, 31 January 2012 (EST)

===Rachel & Scott discuss among themselves and wait for Andy to cite his sources===
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T04:34:16Z

GeorgeLi: /* gravitationally bound and unbound objects */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===digression on atomic weights & ''ad hominems''===

:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===gravitationally bound and unbound objects===

::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bly) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bly away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::So the distances are constantly changing, correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Between unbound objects, yes. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Ok. So that has nothing to do with atomic weight of hydrogen, does it? And we don't have to revisit that issue again, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::No, it doesn't. I used atomic numbers (not atomic weights - they're different) as an example of how some things are constant, because you said that everything is constantly changing. The fact is that many things are NOT constantly changing, and one of them is the speed of light. We know that it ''isn't'' changing because various measurements have been done, and we know that it ''can't'' change because of conservation of energy and E=mc2. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Good. We're clarifying much here. When it is postulated, "the universe is expanding", that ''only'' refers to space, not matter, am I reading that correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Depends what you mean. Existing matter is not expanding. New matter is not appearing from nowhere. However matter is just a kind of energy, and sometimes other forms of energy can convert into matter. So the amount of matter does fluctuate a bit, but the overall energy remains constant. Weirdly, thanks to gravity being negative energy, it remains constant at a value of zero. Who said it had to make sense? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::That makes sense and I believe it. Let's return to unbound objects. The space expansion means distance expansion between unbound objects. Is there space expansion and/or changing distances between unbound and bound objects? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:57, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::Well yes. Distance is just a word for the size of dimensions in space. Like I said earlier, if you're a megaparsec away from something and not gravitationally bound to it the distance is increasing at about 74 km/s. However between bound objects there is no expansion. Distances might change, but only because of normal motion. Even Newtonian mechanics gives a good approximation of that. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::: A group of bound objects, like a galaxy, will experience expansion relative to other galaxies to which it is not gravitationally bound. That is why we see far away galaxies expanding away from us, but not the galaxies in our Local Group. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 23:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::In fact we're bound all the way out to the Virgo Supercluster, if I remember correctly. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===Rachel & Scott discuss among themselves and wait for Andy to cite his sources===
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T04:12:46Z

GeorgeLi: /* gravitationally bound and unbound objects */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===digression on atomic weights & ''ad hominems''===

:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===gravitationally bound and unbound objects===

::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bly) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bly away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::So the distances are constantly changing, correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Between unbound objects, yes. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Ok. So that has nothing to do with atomic weight of hydrogen, does it? And we don't have to revisit that issue again, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::No, it doesn't. I used atomic numbers (not atomic weights - they're different) as an example of how some things are constant, because you said that everything is constantly changing. The fact is that many things are NOT constantly changing, and one of them is the speed of light. We know that it ''isn't'' changing because various measurements have been done, and we know that it ''can't'' change because of conservation of energy and E=mc2. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Good. We're clarifying much here. When it is postulated, "the universe is expanding", that ''only'' refers to space, not matter, am I reading that correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Depends what you mean. Existing matter is not expanding. New matter is not appearing from nowhere. However matter is just a kind of energy, and sometimes other forms of energy can convert into matter. So the amount of matter does fluctuate a bit, but the overall energy remains constant. Weirdly, thanks to gravity being negative energy, it remains constant at a value of zero. Who said it had to make sense? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::That makes sense and I believe it. Let's return to unbound objects. The space expansion means distance expansion between unbound objects. Is there space expansion and/or changing distances between unbound and bound objects? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:57, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::Well yes. Distance is just a word for the size of dimensions in space. Like I said earlier, if you're a megaparsec away from something and not gravitationally bound to it the distance is increasing at about 74 km/s. However between bound objects there is no expansion. Distances might change, but only because of normal motion. Even Newtonian mechanics gives a good approximation of that. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===Rachel & Scott discuss among themselves===
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T03:41:00Z

GeorgeLi: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bly) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bly away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::So the distances are constantly changing, correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Between unbound objects, yes. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Ok. So that has nothing to do with atomic weight of hydrogen, does it? And we don't have to revisit that issue again, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::No, it doesn't. I used atomic numbers (not atomic weights - they're different) as an example of how some things are constant, because you said that everything is constantly changing. The fact is that many things are NOT constantly changing, and one of them is the speed of light. We know that it ''isn't'' changing because various measurements have been done, and we know that it ''can't'' change because of conservation of energy and E=mc2. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Good. We're clarifying much here. When it is postulated, "the universe is expanding", that ''only'' refers to space, not matter, am I reading that correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Depends what you mean. Existing matter is not expanding. New matter is not appearing from nowhere. However matter is just a kind of energy, and sometimes other forms of energy can convert into matter. So the amount of matter does fluctuate a bit, but the overall energy remains constant. Weirdly, thanks to gravity being negative energy, it remains constant at a value of zero. Who said it had to make sense? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T03:31:10Z

GeorgeLi: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bly) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bly away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::So the distances are constantly changing, correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Between unbound objects, yes. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Ok. So that has nothing to do with atomic weight of hydrogen, does it? And we don't have to revisit that issue again, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::No, it doesn't. I used atomic numbers (not atomic weights - they're different) as an example of how some things are constant, because you said that everything is constantly changing. The fact is that many things are NOT constantly changing, and one of them is the speed of light. We know that it ''isn't'' changing because various measurements have been done, and we know that it ''can't'' change because of conservation of energy and E=mc2. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T03:23:17Z

GeorgeLi: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bly) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bly away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::So the distances are constantly changing, correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Between unbound objects, yes. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T03:11:02Z

GeorgeLi: /* 39 billion light years away? */ Oops

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bly) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bly away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T03:10:07Z

GeorgeLi: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bya) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bya away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T02:42:17Z

GeorgeLi: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)