Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Epistemology

2008-05-02T04:00:01Z

Gulik5:

'''Epistemology''' analysis of the nature of [[knowledge]], how we know, what we can and cannot know, and how we can know that there are things we know we cannot know.

{{cquote|There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

'''Donald Rumsfeld'''}}}
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?

2008-05-02T03:34:02Z

Gulik5:

{{debate}}

Yes. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:30, 16 February 2008 (EST)

According to the Bible there's one. - Ultimahero. March 8, 2008.

How do Christians reconcile the fact that only one region of the world has any beliefs similar to those described in the old testament if there was such a small human population after the flood. There for every human civilization should have some story of the flood or ark, a very similar god, and similar languages. But this is not true. I would like to hear what other people think? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:36, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

There actually are several different stories of a "great flood" from many cultures around the world. As far as different languages, the Bible addressed this at the Tower of Babel. Everyone spoke the same language, yet God scrambled their languages so they couldn’t understand one another. And as far as different gods and religions go, I don’t think it would actually take that long to spread and differ. For example, in the US in the 1800’s, the majority of people were Christians. Yet then along comes Joseph Smith and before long he has taken on a bunch of followers into the new Mormon church. Now, only about 150 years later, Mormonism is pretty big. Just imagine that, only lots of people trying to come up with new theological systems. You could have tons of them in a relatively short time frame. [[Ultimahero]]

I can only think of one religion besides from christianity that mentions a great flood, and that is the Mayan creation myth. They believed they were the third race created by their gods with the first being made of mud and then being destroyed by a flood, the next being made of wood and an attempt was made to destroy them with another flood, but they lived and became monkeys. Not much similarity to the story of the ark. What other cultures have a story of a flood? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Babylonians have the story of Upnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh; the Greeks have Deucalion. There are possibly many more cultures that do. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:43, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

There’s the Sumerians, Babylonians, Chinese, Indians, Indonesia, Greek, and many others that have flood stories. [[Ultimahero.]]

I've been reading up on the Tower of Babel, and I can't tell does it deal with the differences in races too or simply language? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 20:06, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Judging by the text, I'd say it's just language. God mixed up their languages, but it doesn't say anything about race. The number of different races is probably just a natural biological occurrence. [[Ultimahero]], March 20

How do we know there is even one God? May you please provide proof?-Gabriel131.

What I originally wrote was that according to the Bible there's one God. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:37, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

The proof for God is the existence of logical absolutes. Logic is governed by absolute laws, much in the same way that the physical world is governed by scientific laws. An example of a law of logic would be the ‘Law of Identity’. This laws states that something is what it is and is not what it’s not. Ex: A tree is a tree; a tree is not a cat. This law, among others, govern how logic works.

By nature, these laws are absolute. They are true regardless of whether or not people agree with them or not. They also transcend space and time. This means that no matter where you truth is still truth. For example, 2+2 is true here, it is true if you go 100 miles away, 1,000 miles away, to the edge f the universe, etc. No matter where you go, it’s still true. And it’s true whenever you are. Regardless of how far back in time you go or how far into the future you go, 2+2 is still a true concept. So the laws of logic are absolute. This also means that the laws of logic are independent of the physical universe. Where and when doesn’t affect logic. In fact, even if the universe ceased to be, 2+2 would still be true.

Secondly, the laws of logic are conceptual by nature. Logic only occurs in the mind. You can’t see logic, touch it, find it under a rock, etc. They aren’t physical items. They only exist in the mind and require a mind to exist. But, they aren’t dependent on human minds, because human minds are different and if that would mean that logic would be different for each person, which it is not.

So, we conclude that logic is absolute, transcendent, conceptual, and independent of human minds and the physical universe. So, how do you account for this? As a Christian, I can say that God is the answer, because He fits all these attributes. He is absolute (unchanging), He transcends all of space and time, has a mind, and is independent of humanity and the universe. I can account for it, but it’s not possible to do so without God. That is the proof for God. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Why would a God be limited by something as puny as LOGIC? Even humans ignore logic 90% of the time.
::And observing the physical universe, I'd say that given the basic assumption of deific creation, the available evidence rather strongly supports the notion of a committee of bickering entities having been to blame, rather than one allegedly omnibenevolent God with humanity's best interests at heart.
::And as a [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGenius]] [[Discordianism|Discordian]] Fusion Paranoid(tm) who's also a roleplayer, I MAKE UP more deities in one day than most people will worship in their entire lifetime. :)
::Do You Believe That? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Who said God was limited by logic? God is logical. It's one of His attributes. Since God is perfect, He is perfectly logical. You said humans ignore logic 90% of the time. That's because they're not perfect and can be illogical. Only a being that could think perfectly and knew all could be perfectly logical. And logic is consitent through and through. I used the example of the Law of Identity, which is a law that is true always. That supports one God, because it's as though it's been authored by a single mind. If there were a committee of Gods, then the laws of logic would change from time to time and place to place. But they don't. And my point was the logic's existence points to God. If you disagree, then explain the existence of logic without God. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:57, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:Humans want the universe to make sense, but the universe is no more sensical than it is hot or cold--PARTS of it might be, but not the whole. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:13, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't address the point. Logic exists and there is no question about it. So, how do you account for logical laws which are absolute, transcendent, conceptual, and independent of humanity and the physical universe? As a Christian, I can do that with God because He perfectly fits all of these categories. But how does an Atheist do so? If you can account for it, then please do. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:30, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it so. If a truly omnipotent diety wanted to make a rock so big It couldn't lift it, it could--and could then LIFT IT ANYWAY. That's what ''omnipotence''' MEANS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 20:43, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

No, that's a logical fallacy. Something can only do that which is consitent with it's nature. God is by nature and definition the biggest thing in existence. To ask Him to make something bigger than He is, which would make Him something lesser than something else, is illogical. God can't contradict His own nature. And you still haven't accounted for the existence of logic. If I'm wrong about logic or one of it's characteristics, then show me where. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:29, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::Do you know what Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:34, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-02T03:30:02Z

Gulik5: /* Yes */

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminise with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marrage should be legaized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundimental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't nessicerally held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marrage allowed (a very long strech, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illigal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religons to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Simillarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimun voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral stadards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speeks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marrages are based upon one's behavioral preferance. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Women in the military

2008-05-02T03:20:22Z

Gulik5: Lynndie England

==Where is the evidence?==

Ed, while obvious statements like "the sky is blue" don't need citations, in an encyclopedia website it's wrong to make assertions like some the ones here and not back them up with valid references. Where is the evidence that women are less effective in fighting than men, or the reference for stating that their use by the Polish military was a failure? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:11, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:You can fact-tag any assertion which requires a citation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:13, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:: More to the point, using Kelly Flynn as a representative example of women pilots is an insult to the skills and accomplishments of the many fine, dedicated women putting their lives on the line for us each day. (No male serviceman was ever discharged for adultery? There are no female pilots who ''are'' qualified without retests?) Support the troops, Ed. They deserve better than this. I'm going to do some research and add to this article, if that's okay with you. I want to point out where women have made significant contributions to the military, and add cited references to their effectiveness in the Israeli army to provide an objective counterpoint to the Polish statement. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't understand how (1) this is an insult or (2) how it being insult means it is untrue or irrelevant. Are you trying to improve the article, or are you just making a point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: You're repeating old, unproven stereotypes about women in combat roles, which many women serving in those roles would find insulting, I'm sure. As you can see by now I'm adding valid-sourced comments to the article, and not just talking. Also, I have to question the validity of the sources you're using. You back up your comment about women being ineffective in the Israeli army by citing an essay, where that assertion is made but not backed up with any evidence. The same goes for your reference for men being better soldiers than women - linking to an essay that makes generalizations does not make those generalizations credible. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:02, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

==Women in the Israeli Army==

I had deleted the comment about Israeli women being pulled from combat over being ineffective, because the source used had no references itself that validated the assertion. In response, I found the following source showing that the Israeli military itself is recommending that women serve in combat roles.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/17/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Women-in-Uniform.php] Israeli military study calls for opening all combat roles to women</ref> --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Interesting I never realized that women served in the Israeli army-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:There are differences in how they're allowed to serve, but the core principle that the country belongs to every citizen, so every citizen should have a part in its defense. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:02, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

==Kelly Flynn==

I've edited the section that mentions Kelly Flynn because it's not fair or respectful to the hundreds of women aviators who earned their positions fairly to hold up an isolated incident as representative of their collective skills and professionalism. If it can be shown that Captain Piro, Lt. Parker, or any significant percent of the hundreds of female combat pilots in the service today got to fail multiple times before earning their wings, then that should be cited as fact. Otherwise it's just innuendo, and these dedicated Americans risking their lives for us deserve more respect than that. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

==Should this Article be Renamed, or just Restructured?==
The more I think about it, it seems that the original purpose of this article was to present an opinion piece that would show women to be unsuited for close-combat positions in ground forces. It's obvious that women have been and will continue to serve in all branches of the military, and will always be appreciated for serving their country. There's a lot of value in having an article titled "Women in the Military" expand on the history of how women have served since the Revolutionary war, and the changing nature of how they've been able to serve. One section of the article could then be titled "Controversy over the suitability of women for combat roles", and Ed's points expanded on there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:48, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Lynndie England ==

Proves that women can be just as MEAN as men, anyway. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:20, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Women in the military

2008-05-02T03:18:24Z

Gulik5: /* External links */

'''Women in the military''' can help a country by relieving men of jobs which either sex can do, thus providing more men for combat duty. Men are so much better at combat<ref>Lt. Col. Robert L. Maginnis wrote: "Because of undeniable differences in speed, strength and endurance between men and women, women will always be in greater danger than men on the battlefield just as they are in some urban combat zones. In terms of modern-day combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive." [http://www.123helpme.com/assets/10933.html]</ref>
that it makes sense to permit (or require) women to stay away from the front lines.

While there are hundreds of women currently serving with distinction in limited combat roles today, there had been some controversy early on when accommodations were made to break the gender barrier in certain roles. For example, [[Kelly Flynn]] was given five extra chances to complete flight school, while her male peers were given only one chance before "washing out".

==U.S. Military Research on Women's Fitness for Military Service==

In 1994, Congress provided $40M for biomedical research on issues of importance for military women.<ref>[http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2005.14.764] Biomedical Research on Health and Performance of Military Women: Accomplishments of the Defense Women's Health Research Program (DWHRP)</ref> This supported 104 intramural and 30 extramural studies and launched an era of research to narrow the knowledge gap on protection and enhancement of health and performance of military women. Several important assumptions about female physiology and occupational risks were found to be wrong:

# There is almost no overlap between the weakest male and strongest female soldiers for upper body strength.
# Hormonal changes through the menstrual cycle were less important to acute health risks and performance than predicted
# In load carriage studies, women with 75 lb backpacks performed better than predicted by published planning guidance.
# Women tolerated G-forces and could be as safe as men in the cockpit if their equipment was designed for normal size and strength ranges.

This surge of research has translated into advances for the welfare of servicewomen and the readiness of the entire force; relevant gender issues are now routine considerations for researchers and equipment developers, and some key remaining research gaps of special importance to military women continue to be investigated.

==Effectiveness of Women in US Military Combat Roles==

American female servicewomen are distinguishing themselves in duty, and proving through their contributions that they are able to serve in combat roles based on merit. In an 1999 interview, Rear Adm. Alfred Harms says he has little reason to know the gender of the pilot who sits behind the controls of each plane. "On any given day I don't have a clue who is in which aircraft, and frankly it doesn't matter. They are absolutely one and the same, and we look at each one of our men and women as sailors. And we have great sailors on this ship" <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/09/female.pilot/]Female pilots earning respect in Gulf combat roles</ref>(the USS Carl Vinson).

In Operation Enduring Freedom in Iraq, female helicopter pilots like Capt. Sarah Piro are demonstrating their valor in Iraq in one of the few direct combat roles women are officially allowed to perform in the military. Their missions often put them at risk of being hit by enemy machine-gun fire and rockets, and require them to shoot back. In recent months of fighting, Piro has quietly sleuthed out targets, laid down suppressive fire for GIs in battle and chased insurgents through dangerous urban settings, maneuvering all the while to avoid being shot out of the sky. In one incident, she limped back to base in a bullet-riddled helicopter, ran to another aircraft and returned to the fight 10 minutes later. "There was no one I wanted to hear more on a raid than her. She's a spectacular Army aviator," according to Major Chris Kennedy, executive officer of the regiment.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601382.html] Female Pilots Get Their Shot in the Iraqi Skies
Men Say Women Are Proving Skills in Direct Combat</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.123helpme.com/assets/10933.html Military, Army and War - No Women in Combat] - Argumentative Persuasive Essays
*[http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2005/03/21/why-women-should-not-be-allowed-in-combat/ Why Women Should Not Be Allowed In Combat] - Joshua Sowin
*[http://www.soviet-awards.com/digest/pavlichenko/pavlichenko1.htm Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko], deadliest woman sniper of WWII.

==See also==
*[[equal opportunity]]
*[[affirmative action]]
*[[employment quotas]]

[[category:feminism]]

Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?

2008-05-01T00:43:19Z

Gulik5:

Debate:Is atheism a religion?

2008-05-01T00:41:50Z

Gulik5: /* No */

{{Debate}}
This is a debate about whether or not atheism is a religion (as can be shown by the title). Well, don't just read this sentence, go read what other people have to say and rebuttle them or back them up you dolt. Yeesh. Don't deleate what someone else has written, please. 
 
:'''Answer''': this is not a debate topic since the answer can already be found at [[religion]]. Depending on the definition one goes by, atheism may or may not be considered a religion. --[[User:Elton|Elton]] 14:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT){{Debate-religion}}

==Yes==
Athiesm is a religion. This is because, to a certain extent, they are worshipping something. As Christians, Jews, and Muslims are one god, atheists worship the fact that there is no god. This might sound contradicting and might make no sense, but bare with me. If you are a Christian, you take to heart the fact that Jesus was the savior of man. You believe that Jesus is the savior. However, if you are athiest, you are taking to heart the fact that there is no god. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

==No==
Atheism does not fit the definition of religion:
<blockquote>1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.<ref>"religion." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 30 Apr. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion>.</ref></blockquote>

One could argue that for some atheists atheism fits definition number four, but that is really a metaphorical usage of the word. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 14:35, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"Atheism is a belief the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." (Overheard on another forum) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 20:41, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

===References===
{{reflist}}

Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?

2008-04-30T18:13:09Z

Gulik5:

Terroristic tactics

2008-04-30T18:10:58Z

Gulik5:

{{stub}}
'''Terroristic tactics''' are those used by terrorists to achieve a desired end.

==Tactics==
* [[Suicide Bombing]]
* [[Assassination]]
* [[Intimidation]]
* [[Torture]]
* [[Kidnapping]]
* [[Infiltration]]

[[Category: Terrorism]]

Heterosexuality

2008-04-30T15:35:52Z

Gulik5:

'''Heterosexuality''' involves union between two members of the opposite gender. It is the natural way that human beings and most animals reproduce. Heterosexual attraction is natural; that is, men for women, and women for men.

== Biblical Quotations ==

=== [[Old Testament]] ===

:"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17)

:"And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." (Exodus 21:7-10)

:"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." (Exodus 22:16-17)

:"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." (Leviticus 19:20)

:"If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

=== [[New Testament]] ===
:"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

:"''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)

:"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:8-15)

== Misc. Quotations ==
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.<ref>[http://www.aracnet.com/~kbuxton/discordia/discordianquotes.html Discordian Quotes]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Bisexual]]

== References ==
<references />

[[category:biology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Discordianism

2008-04-30T05:49:56Z

Gulik5: /* Truth (by way of disclaimer) */

''The Discordianism that can be explained is not the true Discordianism.''

Some say it is a joke cleverly disguised as a religion. Others say it is a religion cleverly disguised as a joke. Most agree that it is something special, though what precisely they mean by "special" is open to debate.

Discordianism, ostensibly, is the worship of [[Chaos]], personified by the Greek Goddess [[Eris (mythology)|Eris]] (or [[Discordia]], if you're feeling Roman.) As alluded to above, depending on who you ask, it is either a religion, a philosophy, a way of life, or the greatest in-joke ever perpetrated (or all at once.)

==Truth (by way of disclaimer)==
''All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.''
<nowiki> - translation of the full name of Sri Syadasti, one of the five apostles of Eris</nowiki>1

Discordians are forbidden from believing anything they read.2 Including this.

Documenting anything in relation to Discordianism is exceedingly difficult. One reason is the somewhat lax approach to truth described above. Another is that many (most? ''all??'') Discordians participate in actively spreading misinformation. Some do so as a religious observance, others out of a sense of self-preservation. Many just do so because they find it fun. Some allude to a deeper conspiratorial motive behind all this misinformation, but others claim that these conspiracy theories are themselves examples of misinformation.

Another reason for the difficulty is that every Discordian is, per Discordianism, considered a [[Pope]], and is therefore empowered to make changes to Discordianism as a whole. This results in mass chaos (which was almost certainly the point.) The upshot is that any two Discordians may tell you completely contradictory things about Discordianism - and both be right.

==History (rumored)==
An unsubstantiated rumor, whispered in dark alleys, hints that Discordianism was created at about the same time as Scientology, as part of a bet as to who could create the most popular "fake" religion. Many Discordians vehemently deny this rumor, feeling that it makes their religion look ridiculous. Others fervently embrace it, for precisely the same reason.

Other rumors include:
*The [http://www.ology.org/principia/ Principia Discordia], the chief holy book of Discordianism, was in fact written by Gregory Hill, a noted time traveler.3
*It has been claimed that the Principia Discordia was actually written in 1812, despite the fact that it was not published until the late 1960's.4 This may lend credence to the above time-travelling rumor. (It should be noted that the trustworthiness of the source for this rumor is extremely suspect. However, to a Discordian's way of thinking, this makes it the ideal place to hide true information.)

==History (official)==
Per the Principia Discordia, the birth of the Erisian Movement occurred when Omar Ravenhurst and Malaclypse the Younger received a vision of a chimpanzee while drinking coffee in an all-night bowling alley, followed by a dream of the Goddess Eris Herself a few nights later.5

The beginning of the story of Eris should be familiar to anyone who's studied their Homer. As the Greek myth has it, the gods and goddesses of Olympus had a party. Not wanting too much disorder at this party, they did not invite Eris. (Discordians refer to this as "The Original Snub.") Hurt, she showed up anyway, and threw into the crowd a golden apple with the word "kallisti" (roughly translated as "for the prettiest") upon it. The story of how the scuffle over the apple turned into the [[Trojan War]] is well-documented elsewhere; the story of how Eris then partook of a hot dog bun alone to console herself6 is perhaps a bit more apocryphal, but the Discordians seem to consider it true - in some sense.

==Philosophy==
Discordianism explains the metaphysical reality as a morass of chaos overlaid with varying reality grids, consisting of the illusions of order and disorder. Learning to change grids is the first step towards discarding them altogether and achieving [[Illuminati|Illumination]].

According to Discordians, to believe that order (the [[Aneristic principle]]) is inherently better than disorder (the [[Eristic principle]]) is the ''Aneristic Illusion''. The opposite belief is the ''Eristic Illusion.'' The mingling of the Aneristic and Eristic principles is illustrated in the Hodge Podge, or [http://discordiansociety.org/ Sacred Chao] (a ''chao'' being defined as a single unit of chaos.)7

''To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.''8

===The Curse of Greyface===

''In the year 1166 B.C., a malcontented hunchbrain by the name of Greyface, got it into his head that the universe was as humorless as he, and he began to teach that play was sinful because it contradicted the ways of Serious Order. "Look at all the order around you," he said. And from that, he deluded honest men to believe that reality was a straightjacket affair and not the happy romance as men had known it.''

''It is not presently understood why men were so gullible at that particular time, for absolutely no one thought to observe all the disorder around them and conclude just the opposite. But anyway, Greyface and his followers took the game of playing at life more seriously than they took life itself and were known even to destroy other living beings whose ways of life differed from their own.''

''The unfortunate result of this is that mankind has since been suffering from a psychological and spiritual imbalance. Imbalance causes frustration, and frustration causes fear. And fear makes for a bad trip. Man has been on a bad trip for a long time now.''

''It is called THE CURSE OF GREYFACE.''9

===The Law of Fives===
''The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.''

''The Law of Fives is never wrong.''10

===Discordian Quotes===
The [http://www.aracnet.com/~kbuxton/discordia/discordianquotes.html Discordian Quotes] are 40+ page collection of quotations - some funny, some thought-provoking, some simply random. Some are obviously connected to Discordianism; others function more like a [[Zen]] [[koan]]. None of the quotes are attributed; tracking down the sources of the more obscure quotes is a popular pasttime amongst Discordians. (hint: try [[Mystery Science Theater 3000]], [[Calvin and Hobbes]], and [[Moby Dick]], for starters.) Others maintain that if you read the entire list from beginning to end without going insane, you will achieve enlightenment.

===[[Fnord]]===
[http://www.aracnet.com/~kbuxton/discordia/fnord.html You're not cleared for this.]

==Rituals==
Discordian rites, rituals and observances differ with the times, the cabal, and even with the Discordian. One common observance, listed in the [http://principiadiscordia.com/book/11.php Pentabarf] (The Discordian Five Commandments) goes as follows:

''A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).''

Other popular Discordian practices include [http://principiadiscordia.com/book/71.php The Turkey Curse], [http://principiadiscordia.com/book/36.php The Baptismal Rite],
[http://www.fools-errant.com/~ebeth/deck/ Tarot], [http://www.sacredhearth.com/funnystuff/erisiancreme The Sacred Erisian High Mass of the Krispy Kreme Kabal], [http://www.23ae.com/format/pdorig/pdorigsj5.htm Gourdfest], and many others.

==(Dis)Organization==
Ironically, Discordian groups, or [[Cabals]], tend to be extremely [[hierarchical]], with members having elaborate titles and degrees, similar to the [[Masons]] or the [[Catholic]] Church. Typical] titles include things like "The Omnibenevolent Polyfather of Virginity in Gold", "Archbeacon of the Blind", or "Keeper of the Notary Sojak". The commonest rank among Discordians is [[Pope]].

Do You Believe That?

==Relations with Outsiders==
Discordianism is about as anti-establishment as they come. It is cheerfully disrespectful of authority, organized religion, the mainstream, and really just about everything and everyone else, including itself. It is accordingly quite popular with [[Hippies]] (and their modern-day equivalent) and other members of the [[counterculture]].

''see also:'' [[Robert Anton Wilson]], [[Illuminatus!]], [[Church of the SubGenius]], [[Emperor Norton]]

1. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/46.php

2. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/11.php

3. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/2.php

4. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

5. http://principiadiscordia.com/book/14.php

6. http://principiadiscordia.com/book/24.php

7. http://principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php

8. http://principiadiscordia.com/book/70.php

9. http://principiadiscordia.com/book/49.php

10. http://principiadiscordia.com/book/23.php

''see also:'' http://www.aracnet.com/~kbuxton/discordia/

[http://www.principiadiscordia.com/ The Principia Discordia, or ''How I Found Goddess And What I Did To Her When I Found Her'']

[[Category:cults]]

Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?

2008-04-30T05:48:46Z

Gulik5:

Talk:Essay:Nepotism President

2008-04-25T04:26:31Z

Gulik5: New page: Soooo....this gets busted down to "essay", but Affirmative Action President stays in the mainspace. No Double standard here. --~~~~

Soooo....this gets busted down to "essay", but [[Affirmative Action President]] stays in the mainspace. No [[Double standard]] here. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-04-23T22:43:41Z

Gulik5:

{{debate}}

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

Perhaps one thing could be a feeling of pressure from other scientists to disclaim god? However personally I don't think that this could fully explain these results to any degree. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 06:30, 28 February 2008 (EST)
: I think that this is the result of evolutionary indoctrination for the last century or so. Despite many Christians claiming that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible, I believe that it's clear that evolution (supposedly) does away with the need for God. Add to that the peer pressure that you mentioned, and other factors, and I think it can be easily explained.
: In any case, your point is a fallacious argument from authority. Evolutionary scientists keep telling us that creation is unscientific because it invokes a supernatural agent that is beyond the ability of science to study, which, if nothing else, means that these scientists cannot be authorities on the subject. So invoking them as some sort of authority is, as I said, a fallacious argument from authority.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:: I don't believe evolution does away with the need for god, however it does indeed attempt to refute the idea of a young earth (but then many other older beliefs do this previously, evolution merely attempts to fill in the gaps of an already presumed old earth). If you believe an old earth scenario, then evolution does not necessarily do away with god.
:: As for your argument about not being able to invoke them as an authority, I do it less from the idea of them being scientists, but more from the idea that these are people who are exceptionally intelligent. They not only have a wealth of knowledge from memory, but also have an ability to understand concepts and the application of these concepts, those in the top science academic groups are also those that can often use the concepts in new ways, invent new concepts, or bring together different concepts. They are very likely some of the most intelligent people, and have an overwhelming disbelief.
:: Indoctrination of evolution just disproves a YEC view. And a lot of christians (and jews since they use the old testament too), do not see this as the truth, and that the Old Earth scenario is the truth (regardless of what is stated in the bible). So since in the majority, old earth and belief of god (be it from merely a first cause god, a tinkering god etc etc), is the common belief, I do not believe that evolution alone can be used as this explaination. I agree that evolution can be used to help people disbelieve in god, it doesn't do it sufficiently to any thinking man (and that is certainly what these men are). It doesn't attempt to answer abiogenesis, the beginnings of the world, etc etc, and even if you accept evolution to a large point, there are stages that still raise questions, like how did humans become so successful, complex animals from multicelluar clumps of bacteria etc. These are not gentlemen to just take things on faith for the most part (possibly the problem?).
:: Perhaps my last point leads us to another possible answer? The scientific method is one of purely naturalistic causes, it has to be they are the only things testable by us. Perhaps after a lifetime of living a life such as this it just leads you to believing in only the natural? The reason the top scientists have the highest incidence of atheism is because they are the people who have followed the doctrines of science so rigorously for so long?
::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::: No, evolution does not do away with the need for "a god", or as you put it, a "first cause", but it does, as you indirectly indicate, do away with the need for the God of the Bible, which is the only real candidate that many would consider (in western society at least).
::: The problem with your argument that you use scientists from the point of them being exceptionally intelligent is that science was [[natural science#beginnings|founded]] (<-- read that if you disagree) in a Christian (creationary) world view, and most of the early scientists, in many cases the ''founders'' of various scientific fields, were creationists. The point is that these blokes were also "exceptionally intelligent", and not only did this not cause them to reject creation, their Christian (creationary) beliefs were the basis for their science. So what changed? Did the scientists after them become more intelligent? Or did the ruling paradigm change to an evolutionary one? The latter is the case, although in saying that I acknowledge that it is not just evolution, but the entire naturalistic view. The idea of a Earth much older than the biblical record describes did come before Darwinian evolution, so it wasn't evolution per se that was the problem, but evolution did provide much of the justification for rejection of the creationary view.
::: I dispute that the scientists are not ones to take things on faith. Microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed, yet they take it on faith that such evolution has occurred.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available. I have no arguments whatsoever that the greatest scientists up until fairly recently have been creationists (young earth or old earth). It was the priesthood in victorian times that really advanced science. Sons of rich men took to the clergy and pottered around in their country villages etc observing stuff. Darwin had been fascinated with beetles and naturalism, long before he started training for the clergy (didn't find any new species, but did get the first recording of a species in england). He was training to become a priest until he stepped onto that ship, he was a big supporter of Paley. He spent 10 years after returning to england fighting with himself about his idea, knowing what implications it could lead to. Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes. Evolution seemed to give a helpful encouragement to help push this deep time, supporting it, and in turn being supported by it.
::::Another nice bit of trivia is that Newton, recognised by a lot as a superb scientist, spent the majority of his life not on good scientific discovery, but working on alchemy, attempting to turn lead into gold. You think he'd practice alchemy these days? Maybe fusion/fission. More knowledge = changing of opinions.
::::I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much. Primate specialists believed chimps were vegetarian, they also beleived pottos and lorises were all very slow-moving, where in fact it's just not true. I'm sure we could both supply a lot more examples of scientific consensus changing when new evidence is supplied.
::::Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.
::::Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible? The first designs of many many machines on paper do not show the actual machine working, but someone capable of understanding the design should be able to see if and how it would be possible for the machine to work.
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::: "''Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available.''" and "''Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.''": True, they did gain more knowledge, but you've already claimed that this is not about their ''expertise'' in the subject, but their ''intelligence''. This argument about having more knowledge is a reversion to the "scientists as an authority" argument that I rejected and which you said was not your point.
::::: "''Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes.''": No, "deep time" was not based on the evidence, but on the ''assumption'' of uniformitarianism.
::::: Newton actually spent ''most'' of his time on theology. But yes, I think you are correct in saying that he did spend time with alchemy as well.
::::: "''I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much.''": Which misses the point that you said that your argument was about their ''intelligence'', not their knowledge of the subject.
::::: "''Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible?''": Yes. Faith is trust ''based on evidence''. If they have supporting evidence, then the trust may be warranted.
::::: "''...how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?''": Some of the main proponents of evolution were ardent atheists, and not necessarily scientists, and in any case scientists are fallible human beings who have their own beliefs, and are not always following the scientific method. To be more specific, this issue, unlike most other disputes in science, goes to the core of what people believe about who they are and whether or not they are answerable to their Creator. Obviously they are not answerable if there is no creator, and this is what many people, including scientists, ''want''. The pseudo-scientific theory of evolution appears to give them justification for rejecting God, and this is a large part of the reason why evolution came to be accepted.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:Most of that post is simply assertion. When Darwin proposed it, much of it's opposition came from scientists, so I'm not sure that they ''were'' convinced that quickly. Of course it has never been observed—but as it hasn't been, then it's taken on ''faith''. The "extrapolation" may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's time, but genetics actually shows that the extrapolation is invalid. All the ''observed'' mechanisms for variation do ''not'' introduce new genetic information, but tend to destroy it. Yet scientists "extrapolate" from this destruction of information to ''generation'' of information! That's not extrapolation—that's ''blind'' faith (i.e. faith ''contrary'' to the evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::I have to disagree here - genetic variation rarely introduces or destroys genetic information - it, more accurately, mangles it. Usually you get two results - missense and nonsense. Missense is something that reads incorrectly - usually something small, like a substitution of one base pair for another. It can have no effect, or be harmful or beneficial. Then there's nonsense. Nonsense is when the resulting genetic code is totally, completely unreadable. This usually occurs when you get a frameshift mutation - since genes are read in codons of 3s, adding one or two base pairs or deleting one or two will 'shift' every single base pair down the chain. This results in more dire genetic disorders. Now, how this relates to evolution: missense is actually a good thing: it can introduce new alleles (variations of a gene - usually just dominant/recessive) into a population, add new genetic strings, duplicate a chromosome, etc. So long as it doesn't result in that organism being infertile or dying, it will cause a change that can be compounded in its successors. Lots of evolutionary trends can be explained by gross mutations that, by a quirk of luck, did not end up killing the organism. The best example I can think of is the duplication of the hox gene (a homeobox gene; it determines how body segments develop) in invertebrates. As you go from invertebrate to vertebrate, you find more and more copies of the hox gene; invertebrates have one, simple vertebrates have two, vertebrates with seperate, complex jaws have three. These large mutations, when they don't kill the mutant, can be passed on and slowly, gradually edited via trial and error until you have an astonishingly interesting result. The best example of genetic information being "introduced" and resulting in a beneficial (to the organism) evolution are antibacterial resistant disease strains; bacteria reproduce at an incredibly fast rate, and as such a bacterial population has quite a few different mutations and alleles in its gene pool at any given time. As such, when you expose the population to waves of antibiotics, the tiny fraction of bacteria that survive by a combination of luck and good genetics pass these genetic changes onto their offspring. Not only this, but bacteria can also pass the genetic changes on to other, non-related bacteria by conjugation and plasmid exchange. Anyways...Yeah. Kinda run out of steam, but there's a shortish explanation of the mechanisms I believe power evolution.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I don't see where the "assertion" is. I'm probably wrong about "quickly", I concede, but the fact is that evolution has been accepted, and for the reasons I state. Plus of course the evidence in the form of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your first four sentences are nothing but assertion. And how are fossils evidence in support of evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal. There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's (is it rhinoceri or rhinocerus's?). They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species. Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating show these fossils to be linear such as pro-sauropods into sauropods, or diverging in the case of birds and raptors. There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation' or 'flood extinctions', and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.
::::Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:37, 10 March 2008
::::: "''Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal.''": In order to "support evolution", the evidence (fossils in this case) has to favour one view ''over another''. Creation also predicts a "rich history of different species of animal[s]", so fossil are ''not'' support for evolution (over creation) in that respect.
::::: "''There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's...''": [[Transitional form|Not according to]] people like Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, and David Raup.
::::: "''They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species.''": They show no such thing. Being able to arrange objects in a sequence that supports your theory doesn't mean that they "show" that that's what actually happened. That's a case of reading the interpretation into the evidence.
::::: "''Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating ...''": Carbon dating is unable to date back far enough to show any such thing for the examples you gave. And all such [[radiometric dating|dating methods]] are unreliable (with some exceptions with carbon dating) and often ''presume'' the biblical history to be wrong ''a priori'', so cannot then be used to support the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view.
::::: "''There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation'...''": Huh? What's that?
::::: "''...or 'flood extinctions...''": How are there "too many"?
::::: "''...and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.''": See above about the unreliability of the dating methods.
::::: "''Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence''": They also provide corroborating evidence for creation and the Flood.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Actually, I'd say fossils pretty well _DIS_Prove the [http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm Whole Silly Flood Story]. If all those animals really had died at once, you'd expect they'd be a lot more mixed-up, with whales and stonefish next to trilobites and Devonian fishes, instead of being neatly arranged in strata, with the animals that the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy tells us are the oldest at the bottom, and more recently-evolved ones higher up. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: So you know enough about flood geology to know the processes involved well enough to make predictions about how things would be buried? The ones at the bottom are generally the ones that lived on the bottom of the seas and would have been buried first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Actually, I'd expect the first ones to be buried would be LAND ANIMALS, who '''can't swim'''. But instead we find invertebrate water-dwelling animals at the bottom-most layers, with the vertebrate fish appearing further up, then the amphibians, then the reptiles, THEN mammals. A result that looks to me like it makes more sense from an evolution-based model than a Genesis-based one. Go read the article I pointed to, it goes into a LOT more detail than I can. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:08, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Massive undersea landslides have been noted travelling at high speeds that quickly bury anything in their paths, whether they can swim or not. Land animals could initially escape to higher ground before being buried, particularly the larger, more mobile animals, whilst amphibians and reptiles, which can't move as fast, would be buried sooner.
::::::::: As far as your linked article is concerned, it has so many misrepresentations in the first two paragraphs that I didn't bother reading any further.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Wait, wait. These undersea landslides move so fast that nothing can escape them.... escept the things that moved to higher ground. Which is why we find Devonian-era giant dragonflies in the same strata as modern birds.... oh, wait. No we don't.
::::::::::I am totally unsurprised you didn't read it. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

One can believe in evolution and God. If we look at the theory of evolution, it is widely believed that life started from extremely simple almost non-living organisms in the thermal vents of the oceans. Who created these thermal vents? Who created the earth? Who created the sun? who created the solar system? Who created anything and everything in our universe? There has to be something. Evolution could just be a part of the way things happen. The same way an egg hatches or ice melts. It's all science. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}
: See [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Are evolution and the idea of God contradictory?|here]] [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Okay. Now, how does one go about ''scientifically'' testing for God? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Little Rock, Arkansas

2008-04-23T22:40:08Z

Gulik5:

'''Little Rock''' is the capital city of [[Arkansas]], part of the [[United States]].

==Notable people from Little Rock==
* [[Bill Clinton]]
* [[Hillary Clinton]]
* [[Jaynor Hypercleats]]

==Links==
*[http://littlerockinfo.com/ Little Rock Info]
*[http://littlerockchamber.com/ Little Rock Chamber of Commerce]

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]

Little Rock, Arkansas

2008-04-23T22:39:56Z

Gulik5:

'''Little Rock''' is the capital city of [[Arkansas]], part of the [[United States]].

==Notable people from Little Rock==
* [[Bill Clinton]]
* [[Hilllary Clinton]]
* [[Jaynor Hypercleats]]

==Links==
*[http://littlerockinfo.com/ Little Rock Info]
*[http://littlerockchamber.com/ Little Rock Chamber of Commerce]

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]

Affirmative Action President

2008-04-23T22:38:53Z

Gulik5:

An '''Affirmative Action President''' is someone selected for that office based partly or entirely on the person's race or gender. As of 2008, [[affirmative action]] has not yet been successfully used to fill the position of President of the [[United States]].

An Affirmative Action President is strongly supported by some [[liberals]] who favor [[affirmative action]]. As they support [[affirmative action]] for other positions, it is a logical extension for them to favor it for the presidency also.

These supporters of an Affirmative Action President are likely to support a candidate based in part on the candidate's race or gender in order to bring historical [[diversity]] to the position and promote broader acceptance of [[affirmative action]].

Under [[affirmative action]], a candidate's race or gender is as important as traditional criteria of qualifications and experience.

Michael Savage has commented that, if elected, [[Barack Obama]] will be the first Affirmative Action President, as he has such a small amount of political (or military) experience.<ref>For example, popular radio commentator [[Michael Savage]] observed, "We have a woman and a multi-ethnic man running for office on the Democrat side. Is this not akin to a -- an affirmative action election? Isn't that why the libs are hysterical, tripping over themselves to say amen and yes to this affirmative election vote?" Savage added, "America's not ready for an affirmative action presidency." [http://mediamatters.org/items/200802040008]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Nepotism President]]

== Reference ==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-19T15:43:04Z

Gulik5: /* ET phone home? */

==Darwinism and the Holocaust==

DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in [[survival of the fittest]], and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between "points" 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about "creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins" is just a cover-story for our '''EVIL'''. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission ''directly'' from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the [[uniformitarianism]]/[[abiogenesis]]/[[evolution|common-descent]] paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed?
In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You clearly do not understand the [[Crusades]], or the history of [[Islam]]. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered [[Spain]] and tried to conquer [[France]]. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the [[Church of the Holy Sepulcher]].
:I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no ''positive statement'' that ''condemns'' a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The [[Bible]] says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why [[Martin Luther]] finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::O RLY?
::{{cquote|(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV)
Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"}}
::{{cquote|Exo 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.}}
::{{cquote|Martin Luther [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html The Jews and Their Lies]:
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
...
I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated."}}
::Yeah, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get craziness like the Crusades or the Holocaust from words of Love and Peace like those! Some people you just can't reach...
::--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying "astronomy makes no ''positive statement' that ''condemns'' a Hitler".
Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
== Is Evolution Truly Scientific? ==
:All right, [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]], pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] and myself, about the "evolutionist style." You keep saying that "evolution is science"—and by "evolution" I mean here the full paradigm of [[uniformitarianism]], [[Big Bang]] cosmology, [[abiogenesis]], and "common descent from one ancestor."
:So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes "millions of years" to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.
:And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space [[astronomy]]. What's this [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that "dark matter" trick on the world once before—they invented a "planet" named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the [[planet]] [[Mercury]] that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then [[Albert Einstein]] showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.
:Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first "dark matter" object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark ''energy'', all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the "Higgs boson," an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.
:Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter ''or'' dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing [[Edwin Hubble]] knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe ''did'' expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped—and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Funny thing, Terry--the scientists '''threw those theories out''' when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say "Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider." And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Until that debate page is created, see my [[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever|essay]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

=== ET phone home? ===
If it wasnt for people 'wasting' billions you wouldnt have your PC, your microwave, your fridge to chill your beer etc etc. This anti-science stuff is funny when you consider the irony.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:ROFL. And how did Project [[SETI]] give us integrated circuits, microwave cooking, ''or'' refrigeration? Refrigeraion predates that project—and the other two things you mentioned owe more to [[Project Apollo]] than to any other project. (Oh, and BTW, I don't imbibe [[alcoholic drink]]s or any other intoxicating beverage.)
:Of course, you missed the point of why I said that Project SETI is a waste of time: it's because they're looking for something, or rather someone, who cannot possibly exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::Because the Bible doesn't mention them? Last I checked, some other things the Bible doesn't mention anywhere: Microbes, North and South America, Space-time distortion in gravity fields, DNA, internal combustion engines, radioactivity, eyelash mites, the planet Neptune, heat vent worms, and democracy. Should we conclude they don't exist, either? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 02:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Concerning ET's: Not only because the Bible fails to mention them, but because their presence would contradict the purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]'s visit to [[earth]]. And also because no serious astronomer, when pressed, would be able to give an answer that could hold up to the question of where ET could come from. FYI, our [[Sun]] is in the middle of a thin "habitable ring" that is probably not much wider than the span between the perigalacticon and apogalacticon of the Sun vis-à-vis the [[Galaxy]]. Further to that, we're in a sparsely populated zone and hence not subject to lethal doses of ionizing radiation from neighboring stars. And don't go looking to [[Alpha Centauri]], either—that's a double star, and rocky planets cannot be habitable in double-star systems. (Again, too many rads.) In sum, ours is an extra-special star in an extra-special place in an extra-special galaxy, made [[anthropic principle|just for us]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 19 April 2008
::::From the theological aspect, I think C. S. Lewis wrote some interesting fiction assuming that Earth was the only planet where the Fall happened--the aliens were JUST FINE until humans went and messed things up for them. As for the habitability zone, don't assume that life can't possibly exist anywhere just because it would be uncomfortable to your grandmother. Remember those heat-vent worms I mentioned? Their preferred ecological niche is around volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, in ''boiling sulfuric acid'' at pressures that would crush wimps like you or me flat.
::::Marvelous stuff, nature. It's part of why I find most religion's "supernatural" so unconvincing--it's not even as weird as the things we KNOW exists. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:43, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

(EDT){{cquote|Pay no attention to the man working the muppet waldoes! The Great ET has spoken!}}

I would interested to know how you know that other species in the universe cannot possibly exist. Hahahahaha.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:24, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:This (yawn) is getting (yawn) so (yaw-w-w-wn) tiresome, but...
:Read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|first-ever essay]] for details.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

You are quite the expert Terry. You should hit the lecture circuit.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-19T06:09:27Z

Gulik5: /* Is Evolution Truly Scientific? */

==Darwinism and the Holocaust==

DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in [[survival of the fittest]], and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between "points" 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about "creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins" is just a cover-story for our '''EVIL'''. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission ''directly'' from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the [[uniformitarianism]]/[[abiogenesis]]/[[evolution|common-descent]] paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed?
In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You clearly do not understand the [[Crusades]], or the history of [[Islam]]. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered [[Spain]] and tried to conquer [[France]]. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the [[Church of the Holy Sepulcher]].
:I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no ''positive statement'' that ''condemns'' a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The [[Bible]] says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why [[Martin Luther]] finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::O RLY?
::{{cquote|(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV)
Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"}}
::{{cquote|Exo 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.}}
::{{cquote|Martin Luther [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html The Jews and Their Lies]:
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
...
I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated."}}
::Yeah, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get craziness like the Crusades or the Holocaust from words of Love and Peace like those! Some people you just can't reach...
::--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying "astronomy makes no ''positive statement' that ''condemns'' a Hitler".
Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
== Is Evolution Truly Scientific? ==
:All right, [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]], pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] and myself, about the "evolutionist style." You keep saying that "evolution is science"—and by "evolution" I mean here the full paradigm of [[uniformitarianism]], [[Big Bang]] cosmology, [[abiogenesis]], and "common descent from one ancestor."
:So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes "millions of years" to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.
:And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space [[astronomy]]. What's this [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that "dark matter" trick on the world once before—they invented a "planet" named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the [[planet]] [[Mercury]] that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then [[Albert Einstein]] showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.
:Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first "dark matter" object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark ''energy'', all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the "Higgs boson," an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.
:Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter ''or'' dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing [[Edwin Hubble]] knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe ''did'' expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped—and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Funny thing, Terry--the scientists '''threw those theories out''' when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say "Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider." And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Until that debate page is created, see my [[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever|essay]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

If it wasnt for people 'wasting' billions you wouldnt have your PC, your microwave, your fridge to chill your beer etc etc. This anti-science stuff is funny when you consider the irony.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:ROFL. And how did Project [[SETI]] give us integrated circuits, microwave cooking, ''or'' refrigeration? Refrigeraion predates that project—and the other two things you mentioned owe more to [[Project Apollo]] than to any other project. (Oh, and BTW, I don't imbibe [[alcoholic drink]]s or any other intoxicating beverage.)
:Of course, you missed the point of why I said that Project SETI is a waste of time: it's because they're looking for something, or rather someone, who cannot possibly exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::Because the Bible doesn't mention them? Last I checked, some other things the Bible doesn't mention anywhere: Microbes, North and South America, Space-time distortion in gravity fields, DNA, internal combustion engines, radioactivity, eyelash mites, the planet Neptune, heat vent worms, and democracy. Should we conclude they don't exist, either? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 02:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I would interested to know how you know that other species in the universe cannot possibly exist. Hahahahaha.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:24, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:This (yawn) is getting (yawn) so (yaw-w-w-wn) tiresome, but...
:Read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|first-ever essay]] for details.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

You are quite the expert Terry. You should hit the lecture circuit.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Libertarian censorship

2008-04-19T02:50:46Z

Gulik5: New page: ==Homosexual beliefs?== Which homosexual beliefs would these be, then? Do homosexuals have some special scientific theories the general public is unaware of? --~~~~

==Homosexual beliefs?==

Which homosexual beliefs would these be, then? Do homosexuals have some special scientific theories the general public is unaware of? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 22:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T19:38:45Z

Gulik5: /* Bribery */

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

FairTax

2008-04-18T16:18:00Z

Gulik5: /* Criticism */

[[Image:FairTaxRally.jpg|thumb|350px|A pro FairTax rally in Florida]]
'''The FairTax''' is a tax proposal that would replace all federal [[income tax]]es -- including corporate, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, [[Social Security]], [[Medicare]], and self employment taxes -- with a federal [[sales tax]]. The tax would be paid on the purchase of all new goods and services, and would be immediately collected at point of sale. <ref> Americans For Fair Taxation, “About the FairTax,” http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main</ref>
 

Thus, instead of taxing "income", the Fair Tax would tax expenses. This is known as a consumption tax. The estimated rate for the Fair Tax would be 23 percent<ref> "Embedded Taxes Change Fair Tax Analysis",http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/wb/xp-51569</ref>, although some critics say it would be closer to 33%.<ref> http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html</ref> 

Though frequently advertised by supporters as a "voluntary" tax, this is not entirely true. Consumers can indeed forestall the tax by choosing not to spend money, or by electing to purchase only second-hand goods (which are not taxed under this proposal). However, at some point, all consumers must purchase new goods and services, including various necessities such as health care, food, fuel, phone service, etc., at which point the tax would no longer be "voluntary" but mandatory. To help counter this effect -- and to make the tax more "fair" -- expenses such as those listed would be offset to a certain degree by a "prebate" -- a monthly check issued by the government to each worker. However, given the income level of most Americans, the vast majority of citizens (about 85%) would end up paying some measure of tax on these items, prebate or no. The Fair Tax would therefore operate in direct conflict with the Constitution, which prohibits Direct taxes (those paid on the necessities of life, or on any [[unalienable right]]) without apportionment. Legal challenges to the tax would probably emerge shortly after its passage and lead to nullification by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating Article I, Section 9. (See Criticism below.)
 

==Proposal==
If passed, the Fair Tax would accomplish the following<ref> American For Fair Taxation, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main</ref>:

* Abolish the [[Internal Revenue Service]] (IRS).
* Abolish personal [[income tax]]es.
* Repeal the [[16th Amendment]].
* Provide each worker a monthly prebate, equal to the tax on "poverty level" income. <ref> Just how fair is the ‘Fair Tax’ CNN Money, September 2005, http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/</ref>
* Close many loopholes under the current system.
* Enable retirees to receive their full pension, untaxed, until they spend it.
* Enable workers to keep their entire paycheck, untaxed, until they spend it. 

==History==

===1986-2005===
[[Image:FairTax vs. Tax Code 2.jpg‎ |thumb|300px|Congressman [[John Linder]], one of the strongest proponents for the FairTax, illustrates the size of the current tax system vs the FairTax method]]
The Fair Tax was originally the brain-child of the [[Scientologists]], as part of their ongoing battle with the IRS. The most popular of initial plans for the Fair Tax was designed by [[Americans for Fair Taxation]] (AFFT), which is led by businessman Leo Linbeck<ref> Just how fair is the ‘FairTax’ CNN Money, September 2005, http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/</ref>. Linbeck stated that Americans have to pressure the government to come up with a better way of taxation, he said, “It is painfully obvious that [[Washington, D.C.]] insiders so closely linked with the status quo cannot be trusted to overturn the corrupt system of federal taxation. This effort will have to be driven by the American people<ref>Americans For Fair Taxation http://boortz.com/nuze/200510/10132005.html</ref>." The organization hired experts to look into an idea for a better tax system, they spent 23 million dollars in coming up with the idea of the Fair Tax. Their findings were combined into a book, “The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS,” which Linbeck co-authored with Republican Congressman John Linder<ref> “The Fair Tax Book”,2005, http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=sr_1_1/102-3275846-3467353?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184106196&sr=1-1</ref>.

The Fair Tax became popular among free market [[conservative]]s, [[libertarian]]s, and some economist in recent years. The complication and wasted bureaucracy of the [[Internal Revenue Service]], government pressure on citizens to reveal information and records, and the loopholes in the current tax system created the incentive to look for a new way of taxation in the United States. Some [[Democrats]] also sought a tax system that would rid them current income tax, which they claim to be discriminate.

In the last 20 years the [[United States]] tax system has been changed over 14,000 times, this has led to an abundance of complexities which lead to its being an inefficient system. In 2003, United States Senator [[Saxby Chambliss]], a [[Republican]], and Senator [[Zell Miller]] a Democrat; introduced a by-partisan version of the Fair Tax. Although the bill had some support in the [[Senate]], it eventually lost in a 50-50. Senator [[Sam Brownback]] later stated the challenges of tax reform, “When you take (the tax code) on straight on, you take on every lobbyist,"

===2005-2007===

Former Federal Reserve Chairman, [[Alan Greenspan]], called for a federal sales tax to replace the broken income tax in 2005. "Since the exemplary 1986 reform, the tax code has drifted back to be overly complicated and burdened by higher marginal rates and by many special provisions that have undesirably narrowed the tax base," Greenspan stated at a Presidential Advisory counsel<ref>Greenspan: "Consumption Tax COuld Help Economy",http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149298,00.html</ref>.

In 2005 congress created a bill to enact the Fair Tax (H.R. 25; Senate Bill 1943), it had the support of more then 54 co-sponsors, and both Senate and House minority leaders [[Dennis Hassert]] and [[Tom DeLay]]<ref>“The FairTax: A Trogan Horse For America,” Jews For Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm#fn1</ref>. Although the bill received the most support ever for any fundamental tax reform bill, it failed to pass. After the elections of 2004, Georgia Republican Congressman, [[John Linder]], reintroduced the FairTax on the first day of the 109th congress<ref> “Linder Reintroduces FairTax Legislation”, http://www.johnlinder.com/News_Details.asp?NewsID=128</ref>. Congressman Linder stated before congress, “The time is ripe for fundamental tax and a completely new Federal tax regime. I am pleased to reintroduce my Fair Tax proposal today reform, and look forward to the Congress creating a fairer, simpler tax system that advances our core goals of lower taxes and more freedom for our citizens."<ref> “Linder Reintroduces FairTax Legislation”, http://www.johnlinder.com/News_Details.asp?NewsID=128</ref>.”

In 2007 support for the FairTax bill grew to include 60 co-sponsors<ref>FairTax Gains Support, http://www.fairtaxblog.com/20070508/record-sixty-co-sponsors-for-fairtax-bill-hr-25/</ref>.

One of the most outspoken supporters of the Fair Tax is Republican presidential candidate, [[Mike Huckabee]]. Huckabee has said that the Fair Tax would "put the IRS out of business, but put Americans in business<ref> Massachusetts For Mike Huckabee, http://massachusettsforhuckabee.blogspot.com/search/label/Tax%20Plan</ref>." 

== Support==

[[Image:Fairtaxb.jpg|right|thumb|200px| A FairTax bus during a rally at the 2007 [[Republican]] [[Iowa Straw Poll]].]]
Most of the support for the FairTax comes from the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Libertarian]]s. A significant number of [[Conservative]]s want Republican presidential candidates to support the FairTax, including one Indiana group called ‘Hoosiers for Fair Taxation’<ref>”FairTax Supporters Vent Frustration”, June 2007, http://www.theindychannel.com/news/13651607/detail.html</ref>. <ref>”FairTaxer's continue to “flex their muscles”, July 2007, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_feature</ref>. Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate [[Mike Huckabee]] made passage of a national sales tax a part of his platform during his recent bid for office. Former Federal Reserve chief [[Alan Greenspan]] also exhibited support for the FairTax in a recent interview.<ref>Greenspan: Consumption Tax could Help Economy, Fox News, March 2005, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149298,00.html</ref>

Proponents of the FairTax argue it would be more practical than the current system, which includes over 60,000 pages of tax code.<ref> 67,204-Page Code Confounds Taxpayers, Yet Congress Sits By, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-04-03-edit_N.htm?csp=34 </ref>. 

==Criticism==
Republican presidential candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] criticized the Fair Tax when addressing a group at the [[University of Florida]] in July, 2007<ref> “Giuliani Jeered For Opposing Flat Tax”, Associated Press, July 2007, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/07/ap3891710.html</ref>: "I don't think a Fair Tax is realistic change for America. Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates<ref> “Giuliani Jeered For Opposing Flat Tax”, Associated Press, July 2007, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/07/ap3891710.html</ref>."

None of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates support the Fair Tax either, although [[Mike Gravel]] has indicated he supports a new kind of system based around consumption (expense) rather than income.

Aside from political criticism, however, the FairTax suffers from serious constitutional infirmities. Supporters have tried to paint the tax as an "[[excise]]". But this is flat wrong. The constitutional definition of an [[excise]] is a tax that is strictly limited to '''privileged''' or '''luxury''' goods and activities. The writings of the Founding Fathers, as well as numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings, confirm this definition.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Excise</ref> However, the FairTax encumbers '''necessities''' ''in addition to'' privilege and luxury items, thus making it a '''Direct tax''' within the constitutional meaning of the term. Unlike true [[excise]]s, the FairTax cannot be "avoided" because it taxes things which are necessary to live. These include food, clothing, housing, transportation, medicine, health care, arms for self-defense, phone service, sundries, education, etc. Any tax that encumbers such items must be apportioned among the states, or it violates the Constitution.

Although proponents suggest that necessities are effectively relieved from the tax by virtue of the prebate, the fact remains that necessities ''are'' taxed. Furthermore, once an individual's spending on necessities exceeds the poverty level, the prebate no longer offsets the tax, and the tax ''operates fully'' as an unapportioned Direct tax, in violation of the Constitution. In ''Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.'' (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that whenever any "[[excise]]" morphs into a tax on items of common right (such as anything necessary to preserve and carry out a normal life) "the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it." Regardless of whether the FairTax is called an "[[excise]]," it is, in substance, a Direct tax which cannot be apportioned among the states. It is therefore unconstitutional.

Finally, the FairTax shares a major flaw with the current income tax system: There is no cap on the rate that Congress may impose. Initially, that rate might be established at 23%. But nothing in the FairTax proposal prevents Congress from raising the rate to 30%, or even higher. Given the government's proclivity for spending money, an eventual increase in the FairTax rate, were the tax to become law, seems inevitable. 

Another complaint is that a sales tax will not effect overseas purchases, or money from investments, encouraging hoarding.

==External Links==

*[http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer Americans for Fair Taxation]
*[http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.htm FactCheck.org]
 

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Politics]]
[[Category: Economics]]

Talk:Unalienable rights

2008-04-18T16:16:31Z

Gulik5: New page: God doesn't do a very good job of protecting these--just ask Nelson Mandela about how long he was in prison. --~~~~

God doesn't do a very good job of protecting these--just ask Nelson Mandela about how long he was in prison. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:16, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-18T15:51:53Z

Gulik5: /* Darwinism and the Holocaust */

==Darwinism and the Holocaust==

DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in [[survival of the fittest]], and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between "points" 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about "creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins" is just a cover-story for our '''EVIL'''. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission ''directly'' from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the [[uniformitarianism]]/[[abiogenesis]]/[[evolution|common-descent]] paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed?
In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You clearly do not understand the [[Crusades]], or the history of [[Islam]]. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered [[Spain]] and tried to conquer [[France]]. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the [[Church of the Holy Sepulcher]].
:I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no ''positive statement'' that ''condemns'' a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The [[Bible]] says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why [[Martin Luther]] finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::O RLY?
::{{cquote|(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV)
Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"}}
::{{cquote|Exo 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.}}
::{{cquote|Martin Luther [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html The Jews and Their Lies]:
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
...
I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated."}}
::Yeah, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get craziness like the Crusades or the Holocaust from words of Love and Peace like those! Some people you just can't reach...
::--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying "astronomy makes no ''positive statement' that ''condemns'' a Hitler".
Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:All right, [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]], pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] and myself, about the "evolutionist style." You keep saying that "evolution is science"—and by "evolution" I mean here the full paradigm of [[uniformitarianism]], [[Big Bang]] cosmology, [[abiogenesis]], and "common descent from one ancestor."
:So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes "millions of years" to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.
:And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space [[astronomy]]. What's this [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that "dark matter" trick on the world once before—they invented a "planet" named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the [[planet]] [[Mercury]] that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then [[Albert Einstein]] showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.
:Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first "dark matter" object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark ''energy'', all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the "Higgs boson," an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.
:Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter ''or'' dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing [[Edwin Hubble]] knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe ''did'' expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped—and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Funny thing, Terry--the scientists '''threw those theories out''' when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say "Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider." And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-18T04:10:39Z

Gulik5:

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-04-18T04:08:37Z

Gulik5:

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T04:02:17Z

Gulik5: /* Reviews */

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Most Useful Bible Verses

2008-04-17T05:42:00Z

Gulik5:

The following is a list of [[Bible]] verses most useful for correction, education, spiritual growth, and [[evangelism]].

(Please contribute)

== Matthew 7 ==
# “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
# “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
# “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
# “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?
# “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
# “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

== Mark 10:17-26 ==

17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 
18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 
19 “You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’” 
20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 
21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 
22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. 
23 And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 
24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 
25 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-17T05:37:12Z

Gulik5: /* Darwinism and the Holocaust */

Evolutionist style

2008-04-17T03:58:36Z

Gulik5:

'''Evolutionists''', or believers in the [[theory of evolution]], have a trademark style of argument that includes:

* attempted [[proof by assertion]]. The classic case of such conduct was Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s advocacy of [[uniformitarianism]], which establishes the required [[deep time]] scale and as such is the very linchpin of the evolutionary paradigm.
* [[argumentum ad hominem]], or excessive personal attacks that often include childish name-calling and personal put-downs, more so than other debaters
* [[proof by authority]], or highlighting their own academic credentials or those of their allies in support of their theories. An academic credential can include anything from a publishing credit (especially in a "peer-reviewed" journal) to a degree to a particular academic appointment. However, [[Ben Stein]] (''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'') shows that evolutionists add this twist: they systematically deny to others, whenever they can, any opportunity to acquire similar credentials.
* use of bizarre jargon such as "[[quote mining]]," "[[moving the goalposts]]" and "[[Fundamentalism|fundies]]".
* inordinate attempt to demonize the other side, as in overuse of the term [[creationist]] and [[fundamentalist]]. The latter example includes the attempt to show that [[Christian]] fundamentalists are morally equivalent to [[Muslim]] fundamentalists, whether in their extreme rejection of modernity or in their practice and advocacy of [[terrorism]].
* an astounding lack of understanding -- or denial -- of how most great scientists and mathematicians either rejected evolution or were silent about it
* an equal lack of understanding, or denial, that most of the greatest scientists in the Western world asserted the reality of [[creation]] and the [[Great Flood]] prior to the [[Enlightenment]], or else a denial that their scientific achievements (including those of [[Sir Isaac Newton]]!) matter today.
* frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in defining evolution as change and [[survival of the fittest]] as those who survive
* [[Liberal projection|projection]]—literally, "throwing off" their own faults on the other side, in that they accuse the other side of doing the very things that they themselves do.
* claiming to enjoy scientific debate yet often refusing to debate creationists.
* refusing to allow the possibility that God exists.
* claiming that so-called "[[Theistic evolution]]" is possible, which would indicate that God lied about the events that took place in Genesis.
* ignoring the clear historical link between [[Darwinism]], [[Eugenics]], and the [[Holocaust]].

(add more)

Evolutionist style

2008-04-17T03:51:36Z

Gulik5:

'''Evolutionists''', or believers in the [[theory of evolution]], have a trademark style of argument that includes:

* attempted [[proof by assertion]]. The classic case of such conduct was Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s advocacy of [[uniformitarianism]], which establishes the required [[deep time]] scale and as such is the very linchpin of the evolutionary paradigm.
* [[argumentum ad hominem]], or excessive personal attacks that often include childish name-calling and personal put-downs, more so than other debaters
* [[proof by authority]], or highlighting their own academic credentials or those of their allies in support of their theories. An academic credential can include anything from a publishing credit (especially in a "peer-reviewed" journal) to a degree to a particular academic appointment. However, [[Ben Stein]] (''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'') shows that evolutionists add this twist: they systematically deny to others, whenever they can, any opportunity to acquire similar credentials.
* use of bizarre jargon such as [[quote mining]] and [[moving the goalposts]]
* inordinate attempt to demonize the other side, as in overuse of the term [[creationist]] and [[fundamentalist]]. The latter example includes the attempt to show that [[Christian]] fundamentalists are morally equivalent to [[Muslim]] fundamentalists, whether in their extreme rejection of modernity or in their practice and advocacy of [[terrorism]].
* an astounding lack of understanding -- or denial -- of how most great scientists and mathematicians either rejected evolution or were silent about it
* an equal lack of understanding, or denial, that most of the greatest scientists in the Western world asserted the reality of [[creation]] and the [[Great Flood]] prior to the [[Enlightenment]], or else a denial that their scientific achievements (including those of [[Sir Isaac Newton]]!) matter today.
* frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in defining evolution as change and [[survival of the fittest]] as those who survive
* [[Liberal projection|projection]]—literally, "throwing off" their own faults on the other side, in that they accuse the other side of doing the very things that they themselves do.
* claiming to enjoy scientific debate yet often refusing to debate creationists.
* refusing to allow the possibility that God exists.
* claiming that so-called "[[Theistic evolution]]" is possible, which would indicate that God lied about the events that took place in Genesis.
* ignoring the clear historical link between [[Darwinism]], [[Eugenics]], and the [[Holocaust]].

(add more)

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-04-17T03:45:08Z

Gulik5:

Eco-terrorism

2008-04-17T03:30:02Z

Gulik5: Cars don't 'trample' things.

'''Eco-terrorism''' refers to the use of [[terrorist]] tactics in order to achieve the political goals of [[environmentalism]], examples of this would be using [[violence]] to intimidate [[governments]], [[business]]es or even [[civilian]]s and force them to support environmental causes.

<blockquote>"It remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat, because they have successfully continued to conduct different types of attacks in and around the country," [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343768,00.html FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko]</blockquote>

Examples of eco-terrorism include attacking, threatening or commit other [[criminal]] acts against targets such as whaling ships, animal-testing laboratories, meat-processing facilities, logging camps, etc.

Sometimes eco-terrorist acts damage the environment they pretend to maintain, for example, animals released from facilities into urban settings have been hit by cars or otherwise died.

Eco-terrorism must not be confused with [[Environmental Terrorism]]. Since targetting people is not the point, it also should not be confused with [[Terrorism]].

==See Also==
*[[Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Video games

2008-04-17T03:24:43Z

Gulik5:

'''Video games''' are electronic games commonly played by a wide portion of the population.<ref>[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> A large number of young adults, having grown up in the era of video games, also play. Some video games such as [[sports]] games and educational games are harmless [[fun]] and can actually be beneficial to a child's development, especially if they allow more than one player. Some games though are violent and sexually explicit and have attracted the attention of family groups and [[Conservative]] [[Christian]]s. Games, such as [[Grand Theft Auto]], are very violent, sexually explicit, feature [[criminal]] behavior and some even encourage it. [[Law]]s have been passed to limit young people's access to these violent games but these laws are either rarely enforced{{fact}} or overturned by judges due to the [[First Amendment]].<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> Some people argue that violent video games cause violent behaviour in some children, especially those under 16 whose mind is still not fully developed, but such a link has yet to be conclusively proven.

In the [[United States|USA]], the majority of games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as "Mass Effect" (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like "Katamari Damacy".

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by [[Doom]], [[Quake]], and the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series. One man in Particular, [[Jack Thompson]], has imposed a self-manned crusade against video games, which has made him a target of both the online gamer community and of the mainstream media.

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has blurred the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, are rather used to tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The [[Breath of Fire Series]] and the [[Shin Megami Tensei]] games, in particular, use God as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion, in some way, include [[Final Fantasy]], [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]], [[Black and White]], [[Xenogears]], and [[Okami]].

==Popular Video games==
*[[Final Fantasy]] - A very popular RPG series in both the United States and Japan. Most games contain violence, sexuality and [[occult|occultic]] themes, some contain references to [[homosexuality]], [[suicide]], teen pregnancy, transvestism and (although rarely) negativity towards [[religion]].
*[[Grand Theft Auto]] - Highly violent. 16-18 and up depending on country.
*[[Half-life|Half-Life]] - First Person Shooter series about Gordon Freeman, a luckless scientist turned hero-from-desperation.
*[[Harvest Moon]] - Farm Life simulator, with many sequels spreading from various platforms. Character runs a farm, raises animals, and can eventually marry. Until recent incarnations, games had no violence. Rated E [6+] to T [13+].
*[[The Legend of Zelda]] - A popular series of fantasy action-adventure games.
*[[Mass Effect]] - A science fiction RPG rated "M" for blood, language, partial nudity, sexual themes, and violence.
*[[NHL]] Series - This series from EA Sports as well as other NHL series are very popular, especially in Canada.{{fact}} They are family friendly with less violence as seen on NHL hockey on television (which actually can get quite violent). There is, obviously, no sexuality.
*[[Pac-Man]]. An old maze game. It was very popular with kids and adults back in the eighties, and like most old video games it's a clean, family friendly, fun game for everyone.
*[[Portal]] - A popular first person shooter/puzzle game using the same game engine as Half-Life 2 involving teleportation.
*[[Resident Evil]] - Survival Horror video game series, revolving around viral zombies and the survivors of the zombie attacks. Copious blood, gore, and violence present. As of date, all games in series have been rated M [17+].
*[[The Sims]] - A light-hearted life simulator with mild violence and some sexuality. Recommended for 13 and up.
*[[Super Smash Brothers]] - Series of Nintendo Animated fighting games. Follows no specific story, mixing characters from different franchises in wide environments. Animated, no-blood violence.
*[[Soul Calibur]] - A weapon-based fighting game. Revolves around the tale of two weapons, Soul Edge [Cursed] and Soul Calibur [Blessed], and those who fight for control of the weapons.
*[[Street Fighter]] - One-on-one [[martial arts]] fighting game series, where a player selects one of various martial artists and battles other players or against computer-controlled characters. Since this game has mildly revealing dresses for the female fighters and sometimes a little blood during fights, though nowhere as over-the-top as Mortal Kombat, this game is recommended for teens.
*[[Super Mario Bros.]] - Side-scrolling platform game series by [[Nintendo]]. Players play as Mario and Luigi, two Italian-American plumber brothers from [[Brooklyn]], who explore the Mushroom Kingdom in order to rescue Princess Peach from the evil Bowser Koopa. This game has no strong violence and no sexual content, so it is suitable for all ages.
*[[Tomb Raider]] - Series of games following the adventures of Lara Croft. All have been rated "T" (Teen) due to mild violence.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Feminist style

2008-04-17T03:22:57Z

Gulik5:

A [[feminist]] typically has one or more of the following characteristics:

* insistence on [[censorship]] of opposing speakers, writers, or presentations
* expression of extreme offense at modest expressions of disagreement
* seething hatred for anti-feminist personalities, such as [[Ann Coulter]]
* lack of a sense of humor
* contempt for women who serve in traditional family roles, such as housewives
* lack of recognition of achievements, such as inventions, made possible by traditional family structures
* belief that single mothers are capable of raising well-adjusted children without the influence of a stable father figure.
* insistence that the lifestyle, attitudes and customs of women should mirror exactly those of men.
* Regarding all men as potential rapists<ref>[http://philosophyliterature.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/all-men-are-rapists/]</ref>
(more)

Talk:Media bullying

2008-04-17T03:17:04Z

Gulik5: New page: ==Tiger Woods?== What, do they cough loudly while his opponents are lining up their putts? --~~~~

==Tiger Woods?==

What, do they cough loudly while his opponents are lining up their putts? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:MilesM

2008-04-15T03:39:21Z

Gulik5:

==Query - Roderick Miller==
Do you know anything about [[Roderick Miller]]? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 11:06, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:No, not really. Why? --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 11:08, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I show you editing many famous american articles and thought you might know something about American history, the article was copied from wikipedia and thus needs to be deleted, I am going to contact Andy about it, I was hoping you could rewrite it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 11:21, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:I just added categories to those biographies, not much in terms of content. :) --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 11:23, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Advice to prevent you from being blocked==
Generally when a word is blocked by a spam filter, it is blocked for a reason. As such, it is considered unacceptable to go around posting it. Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:14, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::I allso visited the site not to be named, and i have to say, im bit puzzled. Yes, it's critical towards CP but does completely censoring it and not even allowing naming the site really do any good for CP? Conservapedia is extremely critical towards Wikipedia, does Wikipedia censor CP and filter it's name? No, they even have an article about CP. If anything, this censoring only makes me thing that they might be right about this site. [[User:Adamy|Adamy]] 20:41, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

:Regarding your change of my headline: Threats and intimidation, no matter how subtle, rarely work out on a volunteer-based community project.
:I begin to feel less and less welcome here after just asking two questions about things that were in plain sight: Conservative's dedicated shout-out and the suspiciously vague "St. John's" news item. Next time I see something odd, I better just keep my mouth shut, huh? --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 20:42, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
::No. You are indeed welcome. The heading is neither a threat nor meant to intimidate. The fact is, the filter is there for a reason. Please don't try to find ways around it. Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:49, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah, the same reason the Berlin Wall was erected. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:39, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2008-04-13T19:59:58Z

Gulik5: A user's page is his castle, huh?

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive2]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive3]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive4]]

== IRC ==

Does Conservapedia have an official or unofficial IRC channel? - Hak

:I'm not sure. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Leptospirosis ==

Just saw that an article named Leptospirosis was deleted. wonder why? can I re-create it?

thanks--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 15:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Martin ==

Why? There is nothing wrong with those links. On the contrary, It can give us more traffic. Do you have a proof that Google would not like it? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:I talked with Andy about it awhile back. Also, I've discussed search engines with User:Conservative. Google does not like it when links are placed at random without a clear correlation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:06, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ok. Let them be until Andy say the last word. They are not without correlation. They are actors all of them. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::He is already in the Actors category, which links to all other actors anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: For us it is better to have more traffic and that is a better way than in the Category place. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Animals A etc.==
Can you move [[Animals A]] to [[Animal Terms A]]
[[Animals C]] to [[Animal Terms C]]
[[Animals G]] to [[Animal Terms G]]
[[Animals P]] to [[Animal Terms P]]
[[Animals V]] to [[Animal Terms V]]
[[Animals W]] to [[Animal Terms W]]
[[Animals Y]] to [[Animal Terms Y]]
[[Animals Z]] to [[Animal Terms Z]]
? --[[User:Qweki2|Qweki2]] 22:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Possible Bans?==
What is the highest possible block time? (besides infinite). Also, can you make a ban of [[User:Liberal9188]] and [[User:HHSFake]].. so I'm not tempted to use either of those accounts again.
:I have one final request.. could you ban me for 3 years, 1 month, and 4 days? Or 5 years if you don't want to type all that in. The reason can be: "request by user". Thanks. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 09:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::I once copped a fourteen year stretch. I think the sysop must have been bored. [[User:HarryWharton|HarryWharton]] 10:43, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For banning, can you do something like "3 days, 1 day, 4 days, etc." o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 21:37, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== So, what's the policy ==

The reason JM unfairly banned me was because I was removing the nonsensical see-also links on various pages. My reason for doing so was because it isn't encyclopedic. I began doing it ''en masse'' when I saw what you wrote to JM that it wasn't our policy. His response: It'll boost our google rankings. (VERY encyclopedic).

So, what's the policy now? I don't want another ban. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Tread lightly when working with Sysops showing them the respect they are due. If you are going to be making changes to their work, then talk with them first and make sure there is a common understanding. This should be followed for all people, but of course Sysops can also ban you for it. Unless there is a specific written policy saying all 'See Also' sections should be removed, then it is unwise to attempt to remove them ''en masse'' on your own. Talk page discussions between sysops, especially before a specific resolution has been reached, do not count. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thank you. [[User:Feuerstein|Feuerstein]] 00:14, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
==Why not copy from Wikipedia? ==

I wrote those articles on Wikipedia , Asteroid.--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
CLtFn--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Blessings to you on Easter - ==

Dear Dan H, You have been doing wonderful work here. :) Wishing you every blessing and joy this Easter - [[User:Taj|Taj]] 00:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Happy Easter and...... ==

Happy Easter! I am sending you a private email in about 2 minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

While I appreciate the action, now might be a time to save oneself. Thankyou, though. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

:: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:37, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Great example ==

Great example of [[opportunity costs]], Dan!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! Opportunity cost is maybe the most useful thing I've learned about in college so far. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Request ==

Dear Dan, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Request_.2F_question|here]]. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name-calling==

Could there be any more damning evidence of the bankruptcy of liberal thought then the incessant campaign of name-calling by liberals against conservatives? If they had a rebuttal to conservative thought, they could simply present it in the [[Marketplace of ideas]]. Calling people liars isn't going to help their cause much. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Deborah ==

Yes, She seems to have expertice in several areas. [[User:BertSchlossberg]] also and she deleted several sentences from his work failing the discussion both had about that subject.
:I'll have to look at that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Midrash&oldid=418826] First strike she did. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the link. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Tools ==

Mr. Schlafly created it, I have not heard of him doing any strange vandalism. ;) [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 03:15, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:Haha... oops. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Christianity templates ==

Dan, you just protected a bunch of almost identical templates (user, Protestant, Baptist etc.) which could be better written as a single template with a parameter. I was about to rewrite them when I saw that you had locked them. I won't do it now as it's late in my time zone, but would appreciate access to modify them at some point. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Do you think you could unprotect Satan? (On this site) I think we could handle any vandals. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== ChrisGomez ==
Really good block there Dan, hearty congratulations. Never mind he's been working his fingers to the bone making improvements to CP, he's a sock so he's got to go.... Clever guy. [[User:Peason|Peason]] 14:38, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:How would you know? You don't have access to checkuser. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::So what's the scoop? I'm interested as well. He added a lot of thick, meaty content with nary a peep. Are these the people you don't want here? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]]
:::It's a user making a whole lot of socks, some of which engaged in poor conduct besides Gomez, and it's all been done by one individual. If this user wants to come back, then it's only going to be one name, one account, no proxies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I see. Are the posts which are considered "poor conduct" by the other user(s) being made at the same time as ChrisGomez? What I'm saying is all it takes is a spiteful lib co-worker, using the same proxy from work, to walk behind is desk and see that he's editing CP. Any liberal would be sneaky enough to create his own username and password and start trolling.
::::When I was banned from Wikipedia (long, wondeful story), it stopped about 1200 people from changing anything.[[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 16:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Cracking the filter==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Francis_%46ukuyama&action=edit&section=1

== Hooray Kansas ==

Congrats, but you do of course know that had Bucknell made it to the tournament this year, and had we played each other, we SO would have knocked you out this year. Again. So you should be thanking us. ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled edit==

Why dod you revert the expelled change?
The sentance 'making one wonder...' is really unencyclopedic
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:It's probably not best to change the wording of the site's creator immediately after putting it there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== A user's page is his castle, huh? ==

You know, just because I may have committed ''lese majeste'' against Blessed St. Ronald is no reason to go messing up the format of my userpage. Which nobody is supposed to mess with, anyway. And I '''do''' think Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer's back in 1980. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]]

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2008-04-13T19:46:52Z

Gulik5:

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Falsifiability of Creation

2008-04-13T15:54:42Z

Gulik5: /* ==Bible Prophecies== */

== I DEMAND THIS ARTICLE BE MADE ==
Seriously, if you guys say this site is made to prevent liberal bias, you certainly have a lot of bias yourself.
Creation is unfalsifiable, and, just like Evolution, it deserves to be said that neither can be proven scientifically, and no, a single book written by some old guys does not count as proof.

Even if this site is meant to have a Conservative bias, conservative<math>\neq</math>christian. I also think that the [[Date of Creation]] should be heavily edited to reflect that Creation is, like Evolution, an improvable theory.

I'd do this myself, but I am unsure of your conservative guidelines for writing pages and I'm used to writing on [[Wikipedia]] The most reliable source of unbiased, open information.{{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}

:You have just started off on two left feet.

:First and foremost, you, whoever you are (who forgot to sign your submission), are in a position to "demand" nothing.

:Second, please see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] before you tell us that Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of unbiased, open information."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Already read it, and most of those problems are just vandalism that were never reported enough to be changed, you know, a better idea would be to simply go ''add in'' the articles of people or things you find need to be put there, and while I am a liberal, I will say that though Wikipedia may be considered Liberal, that is because the policy is freedom of content, as in, if there is proof of something, it should be documented, period. They are not Liberal, it's just that liberalism has similar view to what Wikipedia does. their goal is to supply a source of verifiable, uncensored information to anyone who inquires, and that is what they do very well. Conservapedia seems to just censor what they don't like and tout anything even harmlessly bad about the topics they don't like, and 'forget' to mention the good of said topics {{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}
::: Even on Wikipedia, users are expected to sign their talk-page posts.
::: I've tried "adding in" content to Wikipedia's biased articles. It doesn't work, because the people that control the articles are "liberal" (I'm talking about creation/evolution/ID articles, and they are evolutionists).
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==False?==
"If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresenta [sic] any part of Jesus' story." Sorry, but hasn't Andrew demonstrated that the Bible is false with regard to [[Essay:Adultress Story]]? Many other sections are disputed too, I understand, by more qualified Biblical scholars. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:The Reverend Professor Keith Ward ([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/text.asp?PageId=25 qualifications here]) - and not a liberal, but a [http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/ critic] of Dawkins - for example points out in "What The Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; 2004 ISBN 0-281-05680-3 p.147): "...in the song of Zechariah, in the Gospel of Luke...[the] prophet blesses God for, he says, with the birth of Jesus God has kept his promise 'to rescue us from the hands of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear' (Luke 1:74). It is false that the Jews were delivered from fear of Roman domination, and allowed to live in peace. The nation was destroyed by Rome within a generation." So what are we to take from that? That the Bible really ''is'' erroneous? Or the Gospel? Or the Gospel writer? Just that section of prophecy? Is there perhaps some ''other'' interpretation of the words? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I also have concerns about this article. In principle, it's correct. Practice is not so clear-cut, however. The main problem, I think, is in expecting archaeology to be able to prove that something ''didn't'' happen. Archaeology "proved" (according to the article) that Assyria didn't exist. The same with the Hittites. Now the "proof" turned out to be wrong, and Assyria and the Hittites ''did'' exist. But until the evidence was found, isn't it true to say that Archaeology "proved" the Bible wrong? No, it's not true, because a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. And that's the point: Archaeology cannot really prove that something ''didn't'' happen, so the Bible is not falsifiable ''in that manner''.

There's other problems, but you (hopefully) get the idea. It's not that the Bible is not falsifiable, but that the example ways of doing that are not all good ones.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:38, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Bible Prophecies ==

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]]
(BTW, how do you do that Bible-link thingie?)

Talk:Falsifiability of Creation

2008-04-13T15:54:10Z

Gulik5: ==Bible Prophecies==

== I DEMAND THIS ARTICLE BE MADE ==
Seriously, if you guys say this site is made to prevent liberal bias, you certainly have a lot of bias yourself.
Creation is unfalsifiable, and, just like Evolution, it deserves to be said that neither can be proven scientifically, and no, a single book written by some old guys does not count as proof.

Even if this site is meant to have a Conservative bias, conservative<math>\neq</math>christian. I also think that the [[Date of Creation]] should be heavily edited to reflect that Creation is, like Evolution, an improvable theory.

I'd do this myself, but I am unsure of your conservative guidelines for writing pages and I'm used to writing on [[Wikipedia]] The most reliable source of unbiased, open information.{{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}

:You have just started off on two left feet.

:First and foremost, you, whoever you are (who forgot to sign your submission), are in a position to "demand" nothing.

:Second, please see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] before you tell us that Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of unbiased, open information."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Already read it, and most of those problems are just vandalism that were never reported enough to be changed, you know, a better idea would be to simply go ''add in'' the articles of people or things you find need to be put there, and while I am a liberal, I will say that though Wikipedia may be considered Liberal, that is because the policy is freedom of content, as in, if there is proof of something, it should be documented, period. They are not Liberal, it's just that liberalism has similar view to what Wikipedia does. their goal is to supply a source of verifiable, uncensored information to anyone who inquires, and that is what they do very well. Conservapedia seems to just censor what they don't like and tout anything even harmlessly bad about the topics they don't like, and 'forget' to mention the good of said topics {{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}
::: Even on Wikipedia, users are expected to sign their talk-page posts.
::: I've tried "adding in" content to Wikipedia's biased articles. It doesn't work, because the people that control the articles are "liberal" (I'm talking about creation/evolution/ID articles, and they are evolutionists).
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==False?==
"If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresenta [sic] any part of Jesus' story." Sorry, but hasn't Andrew demonstrated that the Bible is false with regard to [[Essay:Adultress Story]]? Many other sections are disputed too, I understand, by more qualified Biblical scholars. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:The Reverend Professor Keith Ward ([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/text.asp?PageId=25 qualifications here]) - and not a liberal, but a [http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/ critic] of Dawkins - for example points out in "What The Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; 2004 ISBN 0-281-05680-3 p.147): "...in the song of Zechariah, in the Gospel of Luke...[the] prophet blesses God for, he says, with the birth of Jesus God has kept his promise 'to rescue us from the hands of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear' (Luke 1:74). It is false that the Jews were delivered from fear of Roman domination, and allowed to live in peace. The nation was destroyed by Rome within a generation." So what are we to take from that? That the Bible really ''is'' erroneous? Or the Gospel? Or the Gospel writer? Just that section of prophecy? Is there perhaps some ''other'' interpretation of the words? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I also have concerns about this article. In principle, it's correct. Practice is not so clear-cut, however. The main problem, I think, is in expecting archaeology to be able to prove that something ''didn't'' happen. Archaeology "proved" (according to the article) that Assyria didn't exist. The same with the Hittites. Now the "proof" turned out to be wrong, and Assyria and the Hittites ''did'' exist. But until the evidence was found, isn't it true to say that Archaeology "proved" the Bible wrong? No, it's not true, because a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. And that's the point: Archaeology cannot really prove that something ''didn't'' happen, so the Bible is not falsifiable ''in that manner''.

There's other problems, but you (hopefully) get the idea. It's not that the Bible is not falsifiable, but that the example ways of doing that are not all good ones.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:38, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== ==Bible Prophecies== ==

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]]
(BTW, how do you do that Bible-link thingie?)

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism

2008-04-13T15:33:29Z

Gulik5: /* Argument by Bald Assertion */

I think there are two arguments in the creationism versus evolution debate.

(i) Creationism/Intelligent Design is based primarily on the belief that the bible is essentially a revealed text and is accurate. If this is not so, then Creationism per se has no foundation. If you START from the assumption that the bible is correct PLUS there is an omnipotent being who is prepared to do what it takes to ensure that what is written in the bible is correct, then you can, in principle come up with any explanation that you like and claim that you theory is justified. The thesis is not only repugnant to many people as it is profoundly anti-intellectual; it is also intellectually bankrupt, as it does not progress our understanding, either of God or of the world.

(ii) Scientific Understanding (as opposed to the scientific method), is an endeavour which attempts to make sense of what we see around us. One of the features of this, is that God as an explanation appears to recede into ever narrower gaps in our understanding as our scientific understanding expands. You can take one of two opposing views here: either God exists, and he constructed all this so that when reality is inspected through the lens of science it appears as if he is not necessary (i.e there is a load of evidence to suggest that evolution is real, but actually it's a ploy by god to fool us - or to test our faith or something similar), OR on the other hand we might conclude that the scientific expanation is adequate on its own and God is unnecessary. It was on this last point that Galileo had such trouble with the inquisition. They did not per se, disagree that the facts said that the earth apparently moves around the sun, but they vehemently disagreed with what they saw as Galileo's heresy that scientific understanding, per se, can lead you to conclude anything about the true nature of the cosmos. Their viewpoint parallels the argument taken by many young earth creationists, viz: the bible appears to say that the earth is at the centre of the universe, so it must be. If the observable facts disagree with this, then it must be that God has arranged the universe so that it appears as if the sun is at the centre and the earth goes around the sun.
I think it is this latter which is the basic stumbling block, and it does come down to belief - either a belief that the universe is fundamentally mysterious and no matter how much we try, we will never understand the mind of God, so stop trying and just worship him, or a belief that the universe IS basically understandible (irrelevant to whether or not god exists, created it, died some time ago or never existed in the first place), in which case we use the simplist theories, the most elegant explanations, to form the most consistent, coherent and logical understandings of the universe that we can, based on currently available best evidence and the most effective and robust of our prevailing theories.

If you believe in the former, you are subscribing to the god theory, and you do not need to look for other explanations, as the single explanation you have is fully satisfying and is the ultimate 'theory of everything'. If you do not subscribe to the god theory, then you will be continually striving for better explanations, which are more elegant, deeper, more powerful and more all-encompassing, as no explanation that you can come up with will be the ultimate 'theory of everything'.

However, just one rider to all this: suppose that 2000 years ago, all of humanity had been witness to Christ's death on the cross, and was totally convinced of god's omnipotence and that the bible reveals all. The quest for scientific understanding would have ceased, as it would have become unnecessary, and we would be living in a theological golden age, but without technology; in fact we could not be having this internet conversation now.

Whatever the creationist might believe about the way that the universe functions, the real challenge is to come up with an explanation of how the pursuit of science per se, has been so successful, has been able to make such excellent predictions, and is able to provide clear, rational and usually mathematical models of the the way that the world operates, then further go on to explain why, in this particular field of science (evolution), where the same principles have been adopted, human beings have got it so wrong. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:That creationism is based primarily on the Bible may be correct (at least if you mean as a starting point), but that's not necessarily true for Intelligent Design.
:Creationists do ''not'' start from the assumption that "there is an omnipotent being who is prepared to do what it takes to ensure that what is written in the bible is correct". They start from the assumption that the Bible is an accurate historical record, correctly documenting what did take place.
:You have provided no evidence of your claim that "you can, in principle come up with any explanation that you like and claim that you theory is justified". I reject that claim.
:I was interested in your wording that "...God as an explanation appears to recede...". Perhaps it ''appears'' that way because that is, for many, the ''goal'', not because of any necessary result of science.
:Your "two opposing views" are not the only two possible views, and neither are what creationists believe. So you have presented a false dichotomy.
:Your statements about Galileo are wrong. For the most part, his views were ''accepted'', and there was (again for the most part) strong support from the church for science. Galileo's problem was that he upset someone who was in a position to make life difficult for him, plus he was challenging Aristotle's ''non-biblical'' views that the church had adopted.
:Again with reference to the Earth and the sun being at the centre, creationists do ''not'' subscribe to the [[Omphalos]] view that God made things look contrary to the way they are.
:You referred to a "belief that the universe IS basically understandible". What you don't seem to realise is that this belief came from Christianity! A review of Rodney Stark's book ''For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery '' says the following:
{{QuoteBox|India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science? Stark’s answer is simple but profound—the Christian God was rational, responsive, dependable and omnipotent and the universe was his personal creation in which his divine nature was put on display for man’s benefit and instruction. Among the passages most commonly cited by medieval scholars was: ‘Thou has ordered all things in measure and number and weight.’ Christians believed that science could be done and should be done.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]}}
:I might agree that we should use the simplest and most elegant theories, etc., as you said, but I might disagree with which theory best fits that "requirement".
:Your claim that subscribing to the "god theory" means that you need not look for other explanation contradicts the quote in the box above, and the fact that many if not most of the early scientists were Christians (creationists). It did not stop them looking for explanation; in fact it encouraged them to look for explanations. The same response applies to your following paragraph about all quest for scientific understanding ceasing. The claim is simply contrary to the facts. Much of the technology behind the Internet (electricity, for example) was discovered and/or developed by Christians. So again, your assertions are contrary to the facts.
:With regard to your final paragraph, the difference is that the science that developed technology is ''empirical'' or ''experimental'' science that is able to observe, test, and measure results. If I don't believe that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, I can test it for myself. Goo-to-your evolution, on the other hand, is a story about the past, which we do not have available to observe, test, and measure. If I believe that reptiles changed into birds 65 million years ago, what tests can I run to see if that happened?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Some Further Thoughts--

One of the major issues in attempting to debate these topics, is that not only are the terms 'creationism' and 'evolution' loose conglomerations of a whole load of actually quite diverse theories eg Creationism could involve strict biblical creation, young earth creation, intelligent design, creation over an extended timescale, creation and then some evolution, creation by extraterrestrial material via comet etc., whereas Evolution may involve Lamarkian or Darwinian forms, macro evolution, microevolution, random DNA mutations; non-random DNA mutations, environmental changes to metatags within the DNA code or whatever. This means that it is always, on both sides, possible to put up straw men to be knocked down, and equally, to hide behind a slightly different version of the theory when one particular version is under threat.

There is also the other issue of the bible versus science, and this debate is riddled with the same sort of contingencies: in quoting the bible, you are inevitably interpreting what one particular section might say; in a book of this nature, there will be other passages which appear to contradict or at least are not totally consistent with each other. Any argument that you give builds not only on what you think the passage means, but on what you have read about what other people think it means. In science too, there is no real consensus about what the scientific method actually is. Logical positivists take the fairly stark view that it's only about making predictions and not about explanations; however many scientists these days would claim (like Galileo) that science actually reveals truths about the world. However, many science educators take a constructivist view of knowledge, that is, knowledge and understanding are created by our brains via a process which is akin to the scientific methodology of theorising + falsification proposed by Popper. Radical Constructivists claim that we cannot in general know the content of another's brain and therefore are in no position to judge whether another's understanding of the world is is valid or invalid, merely whether it ''appears to be'' consistent with our own.

All of this is like trying to juggle with fog.

However the debate is fascinating, and it serves to expose what on the surface are two entirely different types of thinking, but in essence have many similarities. I personally believe that the essential difference between the two viewpoints is the one I have alluded to above, and that is your starting point, namely in one case, the bible is the only valid source of universal truths, and the other, scientific methodology is the only way of exposing universal truth. The fact is, on both sides whe have people using pseudoscience to justify, support and refute arguments, and this does not help.

In this debate, which is essentially about whether you believe that the bible or science is the more valid way of interpreting the world, you essentially take your pick. However, once having chosen, you then throw away all sorts of stuff. Science has got to be devoid of teleological explanations; life has no purpose etc. And the bible must be the source of all wisdom. However, this is often problematic. For example what does the bible tell you about the speed of light? What does the bible tell you about lasers? If it is quiet on these things, then you have to explain why this is. Furthermore you need to explore how you can ever be certain that you are simply failing to interpret the word of god effectively? For if you start going off and using scientific methodology to develop and extend your world view, how can you ever be certain that the Answer wasn't in Genesis somewhere, but that you failed to spot it? This is a major problem for creation scientists as the bible is clearly not all-encompassing: where are the boundaries to biblical knowledge? Where does the bible leave off, and where should scientific reasoning begin?

However, (and this is probably where I really diverge from creationists): I believe that in attempting to claim that creationism is a science, the biblical creation argument becomes fatally flawed; if science is actually about uncovering ever more sophisticated explanations which grow, develop and eventually become the prevailing paradigm, then creation science must either challenge its own underlying beliefs (just as science has done via the work of Aristotle, Hume, Popper etc.) and in doing so ultimately develop ''scientific'' explanations which are on a par with evolution, and are as elegant as those of evolution. Challenging its underlying beliefs means taking seriously the notion that the world was not created less than 10000 years ago, and weighing the evidence for it, with the possible conclusion that it is very much older than this, '''despite what it might say in the bible''' If it does this, then it could conceivably supercede evolution as an explanatory framework for how the universe actually works. If it does not do this, it will simply demonstrate that no matter how convincing the arguments become for evolution, and no matter how much evidence and argument weighs in against creationism, it sticks doggedly to its position, unmovable, and will never convince anyone in the scientific community, as it is merely demonstrating by any accepted philosophical criteria that it is not a science. (unless of course it creates a new definition of science which has by then become the prevailing paradigm!)
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 08:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with your first paragraph about the way terms are used. That is why on my user Creationism page I particularly said that I was talking about Young Earth Creation (which I would equate with Biblical creation). And why I mentioned "goo-to-you evolution" to clarify that I wasn't talking about a change in gene frequencies or some other definition.
:Your characterisation of the Bible as a book "of this nature" that is subject to interpretation is unfair. That ''could'' be said of pretty well any book, and I don't see why it could be said of the Bible in particular.
:Creationists do not believe that the Bible is the "only" valid source of information. It provides a basis/outline/foundation, on which we can build our knowledge. The fact that the Bible doesn't say anything about the speed of light or lasers is irrelevant. Your "major problem for creation scientists" is in your imagination, it seems, because I know of no creation scientist who has that problem.
:Science is not "about about uncovering ever more sophisticated explanations which grow, develop and eventually become the prevailing paradigm", but about learning about the world we inhabit. It might result in what you said, but that is not its purpose.
:Your assessment that creation science must end up challenging its own underlying beliefs ''presumes'' that there will be some conflict there. Perhaps evolutionists should challenger their beliefs that the world is older than 6,000 years, '''despite what atheists say''' (not only atheists, of course).
:It seems to me that evolutionists stick doggedly to evolution took, despite all the evidence offered by creationists that is more consistent with creation than evolution. See I can spout rhetoric too!
:Evolutionists have already done what you predict creationists might do—they have redefined science to be a search for ''natural'' explanations, thus ruling creationism out ''by definition'', despite its origins in a Christian worldview.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== An interesting debate ==

Philip, I can tell we will eventually agree to disagree with one another, but you seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. If creationism is to be a science, then it must demonstrate it scientific credentials or be condemned as a non-science. That to me is a given.

Therefore it seems to me that there are two paths forward for 'creation science'

# to redefine what science is, and have that accepted by the scientific community, or
# to use scientific principles in a root-and-branch manner in order to develop a single coherent creationist theory, which will then be accpted by the scientific community.

I really think that (1) is probably off the agenda, as from the level of creationist debate that I have seen, there are very few people writing on the topic who have the scientific and philosophical clout to be able to convince the holders of the current paradigm that they have it wrong. (I could be wrong, but I don't think so).

This means that to claim creationism is a science, you must do (2) , or something very like it. However, this means, as I have said, not sniping at evolution, and saying what is wrong with that, but pursuing an extended project which involves (amongst other things)
(i) Examining the essential principles that lie at the heart of the theory, producing a simple account of this, and arguing critically as to why, exactly the simple account is valid.
(ii) Using the 'simple account', developing a consistent, coherent theory of how things got to be the way they did, for example, which things were created, when, and what has happened after that? Is evolution (macro or micro) any part of this story? and then going back to (i) to modify the 'simple account' when it turns out that your 'simple account' is not quite right.
(iii) Using the theory developed to explain phenomena that have already been explained via other mechanisms, and also demonstrating that the theory has greater explanatory power than anything currently on offer. Being prepared to return to (ii) and modify the theory to take account of the fact that it did not precisely give satisfactory explanations.
(iv) Making predictions on the basis of the theory, that can be systematically checked against observation and experiment.Being prepared to return to (ii) to modify the theory when it turns out that your predictions are incorrect.

You say that I presume that creationism will be found wanting. That is correct, because if it really is science, its basic tenets and theories will inevitably be found wanting at some point. All scientific theories are eventually be superceded by something better - either modifications or refutations. I take the pragmatic view. If someone, whether they be evolutionist or creationist, comes up with evidence which invalidates any of the current theories, then that is wonderful! It moves knowledge on, because we can dispense with an inadequate theory and base our understanding one something much better.

If creationism is based on something else, such as a revealed truth, then it is immutable, and will not change. In this case it is not amenable to scientific methodology, and its proponents should not be claiming that it is a science.

--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 11:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Your argument presumes that other scientists will dispassionately and objectively judge creation science on its merits, whereas the opposite is true. Many scientists reject creationism simply because it includes God in the equation, and they have an ideological problem with that.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/]
:Modern science was founded mostly by creationists. Creationism was at the time entirely consistent with scientific thinking. It's not that creationism changed its underlying assumptions or its arguments, but that secular scientists decided that science had to be, by definition, based on naturalism, thus excluding the supernatural even from consideration. So no amount of demonstrating that creation science is science is going to change that mindset.
:I'd say that creationists have done all the things that you suggest that they should do. They have developed their own theories, in detail. They have made successful predictions. They have changed their minds on particular proposals as further evidence became available. But the response is often simply to deny that it makes successful predictions, deny that it does any research, deny that there is any evidence that supports it, deny that it can be scientific, deny on that basis the opportunity to publish in the secular science journals, use the lack of publication in secular science journals as evidence that it's not science (see the circular argument?), etc. etc.
:Your defence of your presumption that creationism will be found wanting is illogical. You are basically saying that it will be found wanting if it is science because science never has the right answer! ("...if it really is science, its basic tenets and theories will inevitably be found wanting at some point."). It may be true that 99.99% of scientific ideas are wrong, but in theory some idea ''must'' be right, so you cannot say with certainty that a particular idea ''must'' inevitably be found wanting. And remember we are talking here about the basic premise; I've already said that some of the details (individual propositions) ''have'' been found wanting.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Argument by Bald Assertion ==

''I'll agree that the basic concept of creationism is not falsifiable. That is, nobody can formulate any scientific test of whether God did actually create the world.''
:And that's why Creationism is ''not science''.
''However, neither can anybody formulate any scientific test of whether the basic concept of goo-to-you evolution, or at least its underlying premise of naturalism, is falsifiable.''
:I keep trying to tell you differently, but you keep not listening. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:55, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:: I don't recall you ever arguing, let alone proving, that naturalism is falsifiable. Nor do I recall you ever arguing that evolution is falsifiable and that creation is not falsifiable in a similar way, i.e. that creation and evolution are qualitatively different in that regard. And if you did either of them, I would almost certainly disagree, but I would not simply "not listen". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Naturalism is a game-rule of science. If you can't play by it, you're not playing science. That said, it could theoretically be disproven---if God was willing to work a miracle on demand in a replicable way that scientists could investigate. Since He's not, it isn't.
:::And this will make the THIRD time I've pointed out ways to falsify evolution: Find God's copyright information in "junk DNA" (Or better yet, the part that gives human beings their distinct upright gait and big brains.). Apparently, the words I'm writing just aren't the same words you're reading, adn I apologize for that, as I just can't think of how to state what I'm saying more clearly without using LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:32, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: If naturalism is a game-rule of science, that's only because the rules have been rewritten. Most early scientists were creationists who didn't have that "game-rule", yet were still "playing" science.
:::: Yes, naturalism could be disproven if God chose to disprove it, but falsification involves ''scientists'' coming up with tests ''they'' can do, not expecting ''someone else'' to jump on demand.
:::: Your evolution falsification test is silly, if you mean that literally. To falsify something, you devise a test to see if a prediction of a competing theory is found. Creationist theory does ''not'' predict that there would be "copyright information" in DNA, so that's not a valid falsification test. However, if you mean that we should find evidence of DNA being designed, then ''we do''. See [[information]].
:::: Perhaps I should write in all caps also? Because I never claimed that you had not tried proposing falsification tests. Rather, the tests you proposed are not valid, or they could only falsify details of the theory, not the theory itself.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::"Falsifying details of the theory" is HOW you disprove a theory. As for testing non-materialism, well: "Pray in one hand, spit in the other, see which fills up first." --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Do creationists start with their conclusion? ==

Of course they do. The whole point of Creationism is "Ok, let's assume the the Book of Genesis is literally true" (for YECers), or "Let's assume the Book of Genesis is figuratively true" (For Old-Earthers), then torturing the laws of physics until the basic premise sounds vaguely plausible. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:29, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism

2008-04-13T15:29:15Z

Gulik5: Do creationists start with their conclusion?

I think there are two arguments in the creationism versus evolution debate.

(i) Creationism/Intelligent Design is based primarily on the belief that the bible is essentially a revealed text and is accurate. If this is not so, then Creationism per se has no foundation. If you START from the assumption that the bible is correct PLUS there is an omnipotent being who is prepared to do what it takes to ensure that what is written in the bible is correct, then you can, in principle come up with any explanation that you like and claim that you theory is justified. The thesis is not only repugnant to many people as it is profoundly anti-intellectual; it is also intellectually bankrupt, as it does not progress our understanding, either of God or of the world.

(ii) Scientific Understanding (as opposed to the scientific method), is an endeavour which attempts to make sense of what we see around us. One of the features of this, is that God as an explanation appears to recede into ever narrower gaps in our understanding as our scientific understanding expands. You can take one of two opposing views here: either God exists, and he constructed all this so that when reality is inspected through the lens of science it appears as if he is not necessary (i.e there is a load of evidence to suggest that evolution is real, but actually it's a ploy by god to fool us - or to test our faith or something similar), OR on the other hand we might conclude that the scientific expanation is adequate on its own and God is unnecessary. It was on this last point that Galileo had such trouble with the inquisition. They did not per se, disagree that the facts said that the earth apparently moves around the sun, but they vehemently disagreed with what they saw as Galileo's heresy that scientific understanding, per se, can lead you to conclude anything about the true nature of the cosmos. Their viewpoint parallels the argument taken by many young earth creationists, viz: the bible appears to say that the earth is at the centre of the universe, so it must be. If the observable facts disagree with this, then it must be that God has arranged the universe so that it appears as if the sun is at the centre and the earth goes around the sun.
I think it is this latter which is the basic stumbling block, and it does come down to belief - either a belief that the universe is fundamentally mysterious and no matter how much we try, we will never understand the mind of God, so stop trying and just worship him, or a belief that the universe IS basically understandible (irrelevant to whether or not god exists, created it, died some time ago or never existed in the first place), in which case we use the simplist theories, the most elegant explanations, to form the most consistent, coherent and logical understandings of the universe that we can, based on currently available best evidence and the most effective and robust of our prevailing theories.

If you believe in the former, you are subscribing to the god theory, and you do not need to look for other explanations, as the single explanation you have is fully satisfying and is the ultimate 'theory of everything'. If you do not subscribe to the god theory, then you will be continually striving for better explanations, which are more elegant, deeper, more powerful and more all-encompassing, as no explanation that you can come up with will be the ultimate 'theory of everything'.

However, just one rider to all this: suppose that 2000 years ago, all of humanity had been witness to Christ's death on the cross, and was totally convinced of god's omnipotence and that the bible reveals all. The quest for scientific understanding would have ceased, as it would have become unnecessary, and we would be living in a theological golden age, but without technology; in fact we could not be having this internet conversation now.

Whatever the creationist might believe about the way that the universe functions, the real challenge is to come up with an explanation of how the pursuit of science per se, has been so successful, has been able to make such excellent predictions, and is able to provide clear, rational and usually mathematical models of the the way that the world operates, then further go on to explain why, in this particular field of science (evolution), where the same principles have been adopted, human beings have got it so wrong. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:That creationism is based primarily on the Bible may be correct (at least if you mean as a starting point), but that's not necessarily true for Intelligent Design.
:Creationists do ''not'' start from the assumption that "there is an omnipotent being who is prepared to do what it takes to ensure that what is written in the bible is correct". They start from the assumption that the Bible is an accurate historical record, correctly documenting what did take place.
:You have provided no evidence of your claim that "you can, in principle come up with any explanation that you like and claim that you theory is justified". I reject that claim.
:I was interested in your wording that "...God as an explanation appears to recede...". Perhaps it ''appears'' that way because that is, for many, the ''goal'', not because of any necessary result of science.
:Your "two opposing views" are not the only two possible views, and neither are what creationists believe. So you have presented a false dichotomy.
:Your statements about Galileo are wrong. For the most part, his views were ''accepted'', and there was (again for the most part) strong support from the church for science. Galileo's problem was that he upset someone who was in a position to make life difficult for him, plus he was challenging Aristotle's ''non-biblical'' views that the church had adopted.
:Again with reference to the Earth and the sun being at the centre, creationists do ''not'' subscribe to the [[Omphalos]] view that God made things look contrary to the way they are.
:You referred to a "belief that the universe IS basically understandible". What you don't seem to realise is that this belief came from Christianity! A review of Rodney Stark's book ''For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery '' says the following:
{{QuoteBox|India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science? Stark’s answer is simple but profound—the Christian God was rational, responsive, dependable and omnipotent and the universe was his personal creation in which his divine nature was put on display for man’s benefit and instruction. Among the passages most commonly cited by medieval scholars was: ‘Thou has ordered all things in measure and number and weight.’ Christians believed that science could be done and should be done.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]}}
:I might agree that we should use the simplest and most elegant theories, etc., as you said, but I might disagree with which theory best fits that "requirement".
:Your claim that subscribing to the "god theory" means that you need not look for other explanation contradicts the quote in the box above, and the fact that many if not most of the early scientists were Christians (creationists). It did not stop them looking for explanation; in fact it encouraged them to look for explanations. The same response applies to your following paragraph about all quest for scientific understanding ceasing. The claim is simply contrary to the facts. Much of the technology behind the Internet (electricity, for example) was discovered and/or developed by Christians. So again, your assertions are contrary to the facts.
:With regard to your final paragraph, the difference is that the science that developed technology is ''empirical'' or ''experimental'' science that is able to observe, test, and measure results. If I don't believe that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, I can test it for myself. Goo-to-your evolution, on the other hand, is a story about the past, which we do not have available to observe, test, and measure. If I believe that reptiles changed into birds 65 million years ago, what tests can I run to see if that happened?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Some Further Thoughts--

One of the major issues in attempting to debate these topics, is that not only are the terms 'creationism' and 'evolution' loose conglomerations of a whole load of actually quite diverse theories eg Creationism could involve strict biblical creation, young earth creation, intelligent design, creation over an extended timescale, creation and then some evolution, creation by extraterrestrial material via comet etc., whereas Evolution may involve Lamarkian or Darwinian forms, macro evolution, microevolution, random DNA mutations; non-random DNA mutations, environmental changes to metatags within the DNA code or whatever. This means that it is always, on both sides, possible to put up straw men to be knocked down, and equally, to hide behind a slightly different version of the theory when one particular version is under threat.

There is also the other issue of the bible versus science, and this debate is riddled with the same sort of contingencies: in quoting the bible, you are inevitably interpreting what one particular section might say; in a book of this nature, there will be other passages which appear to contradict or at least are not totally consistent with each other. Any argument that you give builds not only on what you think the passage means, but on what you have read about what other people think it means. In science too, there is no real consensus about what the scientific method actually is. Logical positivists take the fairly stark view that it's only about making predictions and not about explanations; however many scientists these days would claim (like Galileo) that science actually reveals truths about the world. However, many science educators take a constructivist view of knowledge, that is, knowledge and understanding are created by our brains via a process which is akin to the scientific methodology of theorising + falsification proposed by Popper. Radical Constructivists claim that we cannot in general know the content of another's brain and therefore are in no position to judge whether another's understanding of the world is is valid or invalid, merely whether it ''appears to be'' consistent with our own.

All of this is like trying to juggle with fog.

However the debate is fascinating, and it serves to expose what on the surface are two entirely different types of thinking, but in essence have many similarities. I personally believe that the essential difference between the two viewpoints is the one I have alluded to above, and that is your starting point, namely in one case, the bible is the only valid source of universal truths, and the other, scientific methodology is the only way of exposing universal truth. The fact is, on both sides whe have people using pseudoscience to justify, support and refute arguments, and this does not help.

In this debate, which is essentially about whether you believe that the bible or science is the more valid way of interpreting the world, you essentially take your pick. However, once having chosen, you then throw away all sorts of stuff. Science has got to be devoid of teleological explanations; life has no purpose etc. And the bible must be the source of all wisdom. However, this is often problematic. For example what does the bible tell you about the speed of light? What does the bible tell you about lasers? If it is quiet on these things, then you have to explain why this is. Furthermore you need to explore how you can ever be certain that you are simply failing to interpret the word of god effectively? For if you start going off and using scientific methodology to develop and extend your world view, how can you ever be certain that the Answer wasn't in Genesis somewhere, but that you failed to spot it? This is a major problem for creation scientists as the bible is clearly not all-encompassing: where are the boundaries to biblical knowledge? Where does the bible leave off, and where should scientific reasoning begin?

However, (and this is probably where I really diverge from creationists): I believe that in attempting to claim that creationism is a science, the biblical creation argument becomes fatally flawed; if science is actually about uncovering ever more sophisticated explanations which grow, develop and eventually become the prevailing paradigm, then creation science must either challenge its own underlying beliefs (just as science has done via the work of Aristotle, Hume, Popper etc.) and in doing so ultimately develop ''scientific'' explanations which are on a par with evolution, and are as elegant as those of evolution. Challenging its underlying beliefs means taking seriously the notion that the world was not created less than 10000 years ago, and weighing the evidence for it, with the possible conclusion that it is very much older than this, '''despite what it might say in the bible''' If it does this, then it could conceivably supercede evolution as an explanatory framework for how the universe actually works. If it does not do this, it will simply demonstrate that no matter how convincing the arguments become for evolution, and no matter how much evidence and argument weighs in against creationism, it sticks doggedly to its position, unmovable, and will never convince anyone in the scientific community, as it is merely demonstrating by any accepted philosophical criteria that it is not a science. (unless of course it creates a new definition of science which has by then become the prevailing paradigm!)
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 08:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with your first paragraph about the way terms are used. That is why on my user Creationism page I particularly said that I was talking about Young Earth Creation (which I would equate with Biblical creation). And why I mentioned "goo-to-you evolution" to clarify that I wasn't talking about a change in gene frequencies or some other definition.
:Your characterisation of the Bible as a book "of this nature" that is subject to interpretation is unfair. That ''could'' be said of pretty well any book, and I don't see why it could be said of the Bible in particular.
:Creationists do not believe that the Bible is the "only" valid source of information. It provides a basis/outline/foundation, on which we can build our knowledge. The fact that the Bible doesn't say anything about the speed of light or lasers is irrelevant. Your "major problem for creation scientists" is in your imagination, it seems, because I know of no creation scientist who has that problem.
:Science is not "about about uncovering ever more sophisticated explanations which grow, develop and eventually become the prevailing paradigm", but about learning about the world we inhabit. It might result in what you said, but that is not its purpose.
:Your assessment that creation science must end up challenging its own underlying beliefs ''presumes'' that there will be some conflict there. Perhaps evolutionists should challenger their beliefs that the world is older than 6,000 years, '''despite what atheists say''' (not only atheists, of course).
:It seems to me that evolutionists stick doggedly to evolution took, despite all the evidence offered by creationists that is more consistent with creation than evolution. See I can spout rhetoric too!
:Evolutionists have already done what you predict creationists might do—they have redefined science to be a search for ''natural'' explanations, thus ruling creationism out ''by definition'', despite its origins in a Christian worldview.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== An interesting debate ==

Philip, I can tell we will eventually agree to disagree with one another, but you seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. If creationism is to be a science, then it must demonstrate it scientific credentials or be condemned as a non-science. That to me is a given.

Therefore it seems to me that there are two paths forward for 'creation science'

# to redefine what science is, and have that accepted by the scientific community, or
# to use scientific principles in a root-and-branch manner in order to develop a single coherent creationist theory, which will then be accpted by the scientific community.

I really think that (1) is probably off the agenda, as from the level of creationist debate that I have seen, there are very few people writing on the topic who have the scientific and philosophical clout to be able to convince the holders of the current paradigm that they have it wrong. (I could be wrong, but I don't think so).

This means that to claim creationism is a science, you must do (2) , or something very like it. However, this means, as I have said, not sniping at evolution, and saying what is wrong with that, but pursuing an extended project which involves (amongst other things)
(i) Examining the essential principles that lie at the heart of the theory, producing a simple account of this, and arguing critically as to why, exactly the simple account is valid.
(ii) Using the 'simple account', developing a consistent, coherent theory of how things got to be the way they did, for example, which things were created, when, and what has happened after that? Is evolution (macro or micro) any part of this story? and then going back to (i) to modify the 'simple account' when it turns out that your 'simple account' is not quite right.
(iii) Using the theory developed to explain phenomena that have already been explained via other mechanisms, and also demonstrating that the theory has greater explanatory power than anything currently on offer. Being prepared to return to (ii) and modify the theory to take account of the fact that it did not precisely give satisfactory explanations.
(iv) Making predictions on the basis of the theory, that can be systematically checked against observation and experiment.Being prepared to return to (ii) to modify the theory when it turns out that your predictions are incorrect.

You say that I presume that creationism will be found wanting. That is correct, because if it really is science, its basic tenets and theories will inevitably be found wanting at some point. All scientific theories are eventually be superceded by something better - either modifications or refutations. I take the pragmatic view. If someone, whether they be evolutionist or creationist, comes up with evidence which invalidates any of the current theories, then that is wonderful! It moves knowledge on, because we can dispense with an inadequate theory and base our understanding one something much better.

If creationism is based on something else, such as a revealed truth, then it is immutable, and will not change. In this case it is not amenable to scientific methodology, and its proponents should not be claiming that it is a science.

--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 11:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Your argument presumes that other scientists will dispassionately and objectively judge creation science on its merits, whereas the opposite is true. Many scientists reject creationism simply because it includes God in the equation, and they have an ideological problem with that.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/]
:Modern science was founded mostly by creationists. Creationism was at the time entirely consistent with scientific thinking. It's not that creationism changed its underlying assumptions or its arguments, but that secular scientists decided that science had to be, by definition, based on naturalism, thus excluding the supernatural even from consideration. So no amount of demonstrating that creation science is science is going to change that mindset.
:I'd say that creationists have done all the things that you suggest that they should do. They have developed their own theories, in detail. They have made successful predictions. They have changed their minds on particular proposals as further evidence became available. But the response is often simply to deny that it makes successful predictions, deny that it does any research, deny that there is any evidence that supports it, deny that it can be scientific, deny on that basis the opportunity to publish in the secular science journals, use the lack of publication in secular science journals as evidence that it's not science (see the circular argument?), etc. etc.
:Your defence of your presumption that creationism will be found wanting is illogical. You are basically saying that it will be found wanting if it is science because science never has the right answer! ("...if it really is science, its basic tenets and theories will inevitably be found wanting at some point."). It may be true that 99.99% of scientific ideas are wrong, but in theory some idea ''must'' be right, so you cannot say with certainty that a particular idea ''must'' inevitably be found wanting. And remember we are talking here about the basic premise; I've already said that some of the details (individual propositions) ''have'' been found wanting.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Argument by Bald Assertion ==

''I'll agree that the basic concept of creationism is not falsifiable. That is, nobody can formulate any scientific test of whether God did actually create the world.''
:And that's why Creationism is ''not science''.
''However, neither can anybody formulate any scientific test of whether the basic concept of goo-to-you evolution, or at least its underlying premise of naturalism, is falsifiable.''
:I keep trying to tell you differently, but you keep not listening. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:55, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:: I don't recall you ever arguing, let alone proving, that naturalism is falsifiable. Nor do I recall you ever arguing that evolution is falsifiable and that creation is not falsifiable in a similar way, i.e. that creation and evolution are qualitatively different in that regard. And if you did either of them, I would almost certainly disagree, but I would not simply "not listen". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Naturalism is a game-rule of science. If you can't play by it, you're not playing science. That said, it could theoretically be disproven---if God was willing to work a miracle on demand in a replicable way that scientists could investigate. Since He's not, it isn't.
:::And this will make the THIRD time I've pointed out ways to falsify evolution: Find God's copyright information in "junk DNA" (Or better yet, the part that gives human beings their distinct upright gait and big brains.). Apparently, the words I'm writing just aren't the same words you're reading, adn I apologize for that, as I just can't think of how to state what I'm saying more clearly without using LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:32, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: If naturalism is a game-rule of science, that's only because the rules have been rewritten. Most early scientists were creationists who didn't have that "game-rule", yet were still "playing" science.
:::: Yes, naturalism could be disproven if God chose to disprove it, but falsification involves ''scientists'' coming up with tests ''they'' can do, not expecting ''someone else'' to jump on demand.
:::: Your evolution falsification test is silly, if you mean that literally. To falsify something, you devise a test to see if a prediction of a competing theory is found. Creationist theory does ''not'' predict that there would be "copyright information" in DNA, so that's not a valid falsification test. However, if you mean that we should find evidence of DNA being designed, then ''we do''. See [[information]].
:::: Perhaps I should write in all caps also? Because I never claimed that you had not tried proposing falsification tests. Rather, the tests you proposed are not valid, or they could only falsify details of the theory, not the theory itself.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Do creationists start with their conclusion? ==

Of course they do. The whole point of Creationism is "Ok, let's assume the the Book of Genesis is literally true" (for YECers), or "Let's assume the Book of Genesis is figuratively true" (For Old-Earthers), then torturing the laws of physics until the basic premise sounds vaguely plausible. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:29, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-04-12T23:30:58Z

Gulik5: /* YES! */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:QED, Roopilots. Tirades like that do nothing for the kind of people who want to actively discuss their faith. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:15, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Actually, Universe comes from the old French "univers" which in turn comes from the latin "universum" which is a compound of unus (meaning one) and versum (meaning somthing rolled, changed). Therefore Universe literally means "everything rolled into one." Not single sentence. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC ''might'' detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See [[Talk:Theory_of_Evolution#What_if...3F|here]]. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, when religion tries to intrude upon science, it does so to the detraction of religion. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts
of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and
distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience.
It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do
all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only
ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"}}
--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:30, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

YEC casts God as either an intentional deceiver or at least a negligent deceiver.... that can not be true, science must guide us to the truth of God!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::This also leads to another debate, [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]. Thought I should point this out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::::So that we have a Scientific Dictatorship through the direction of empirical scientism. Knowledge must first be able to pass through the empirical bookkeeping systems to ensure only one type of methodology is used. In this way total control is applied to which knowledge is disseminated and which is suppressed. If it doesn't agree with certain criteria of the bookkeeper then it is discarded and marginalized. Conspirators of this Scientific Dictatorship are then able to exercise total control of all knowledge deemed acceptable for their followers to worship after. The Empirical misinformation system that is active today can be seen everywhere and at anytime in our society. Eugenics, Social Biology, Evolutionism, with the latest being the man-made global warming scam. The 'means' of the Scientific Dictatorship is knowledge while the 'end' being the total control of the society. This is where we are today.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:33, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::ROFL! [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism

2008-04-12T18:32:00Z

Gulik5: /* Argument by Bald Assertion */

Essay:Most Influential Persons

2008-04-12T18:26:44Z

Gulik5:

1. [[Jesus]]. “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1: 3) That influence is hard to beat.
 2. [[John the Apostle]], the author of the most influential work in history, the [[Gospel of John]].
 3. [[Eve]]. All humans have inherited their sinful nature from Eve.
 4. [[Noah]]. “So the lord said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth… for I am sorry that I have made them.’ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6: 7-8) God preserved his creation for the sake of Noah.
 5. [[Abraham]]. Abraham was the father of the Jews and the Moslems through Isaac and Ishmael respectively. He sacrificed [[Isaac]] on mount Moriah and is and remains a great example of faith.
 6. [[Moses]]. Leader of the Israelites through whom God gave the Ten Commandments.
 7. [[David]]. Second king of Israel whose psalms have great influence to this day.
 8. [[Paul]]. Evangelist and author of many new-testament books.
 9. [[Alexander the Great]]. Conqueror of most of the known world.
 10. Constantine. Roman emperor who spread Christianity.
 11. Julius Caesar. Great Roman dictator whose murder set the stage for the Roman Empire.
 12. [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Third President of the United States, author of the [[Declaration of Independance]], and mover/shaker in the [[Bill of Rights]].
 13. Simon [[Peter]], [[Saint Peter]], first among the Apostles. [[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]
 (above list modified from a version submitted by Benjamin S.)

 
 Jesus
 [[Julius Caesar]]
 [[George Washington]]
 [[Isaac Newton]]
 Alexander the Great
 Adam
 Thomas Edison
 Napoleon
 Martin Luther
 Nicolaus Copernicus.
 (submitted by Nathanael H.)

 1. Jesus
 2. Adam ( and Eve)
 3. Abraham
 4. Muhammad
 5. Apostle Paul
 6. Karl Marx
 7. Martin Luther
 8. Charles Darwin
 9. Aristotle
 10. Charles Martel
 (submitted by Daniel M.)

 1. Jesus
 2. Moses
 3. Mohammed
 4. Buddha
 5. Confucius
 6. Alexander the Great
 7. Napoleon
 8. Paul (the Apostle)
 9. Sir Isaac Newton
 10. Louis Pasteur
 (submitted by Duncan B.)

 1. Jesus Christ
 2. Noah
 3. Moses
 4. The Apostle Paul
 5. Socrates
 6. Archimedes
 7. John Locke
 8. Sir Isaac Newton
 9. Alexander the Great
 10. Christopher Columbus
 (submitted by Chris J.)

 1. Jesus
 2. Alexander the Great
 3. Mohammed
 4. Karl Marx
 5. Socrates
 6. Martin Luther
 7. Charles Darwin
 8. Louis Pasteur
 9. William Shakespeare
 10. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 (submitted by Julianna M.)

 1. Jesus Christ: Central figure in Christianity.
 2. Mohammad: Founder of Islam.
 3. Isaac Newton: A physicist who discovered the theory of universal gravitation, the laws of motion, and major developments in mathematics, optics, and thermodynamics.
 4. Moses: A prophet of Judaism and the leader of Israel.
 5. Buddha: The Founder of Buddhism.
 6. Confucius: The Founder of Confucianism.
 7. Albert Einstein: A physicist who discovered the theory of relativity, and Einsteinian physics.
 8. Ts'ai Lun: The inventor of paper.
 9. Johannes Gutenberg: the inventor who developed movable type and printing.
 10. Christopher Columbus: An explorer who led Europe to the Americas.
 (submitted by Tyler M.)

 1. Jesus Christ
 2. Mohammad
 3. Augustus Caesar
 4. Christopher Columbus
 5. Vladimir Lenin
 6. Charles Darwin
 7. Alexander the Great
 8. Albert Einstein
 9. Constantine the Great
 10. Martin Luther
 (submitted by Max M.)

 George Washington
 Benjamin Franklin
 Alexander the Great
 Napoleon
 Thomas Edison
 Mikhail Kalashnikov (inventor of the AK-47)
 Winston Churchill
 Julius Cesar
 Isaac/Ishmael
 And of course, Jesus.
 (submitted by Scott J.)

 1. Jesus (His death opened the gateways of heaven for all mankind.)
 2. Confucius (His system of thought laid the foundation of society in China, Korea, and Japan.)
 3. Muhammad (Founded Islam which for good or ill has been one of the most influential religions both politically and culturally)
 4. Socrates
 5. Henry Ford (built the first popular automobile and started mass production)
 6. Archimedes (laid the foundation for mathematics)
 7. Alexander the Great (spread the Greek language and conquered the world)
 8. Ronald Reagan (parted the Iron Curtain)
 9. Shakespeare (his writings shaped English culture and therefore the World)
 10. Winston Churchill (Inspired the British and their allies to resist the Nazis)
 (Billy M.)

Billy M.'s list seems like a good one. Let me add in:
# St. Paul--without him, the Christian religion would probably still be a splinter sect of Judaism.
# Charles Darwin
# Adolf Hitler (You didn't say GOOD, just influential.)
# Karl Marx
# Abraham Lincoln, whose election catalyzed the Civil War, and finally abolished slavery in the United States.
# Rupert Murdoch, without whom Bush would never be president.
# George W. Bush
# Osama Bin Laden: did more damage to the USA with boxcutters than the Soviet Union could ever have done with nukes.
# Bill Gates: For bringing computing to the masses. Buggy, inferior computing, but computing nonetheless.
# Tim Berners-Lee: for thinking up the World-Wide Web, the biggest advance in communication since the telephone.
# Gutenberg, for the other biggest advance.
# Tom Paine, for writing Common Sense.
# Adam Smith, who, much like Jesus, is invoked the loudest by those who haven't really read him.
--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:26, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-04-12T18:19:07Z

Gulik5: /* Claiming expertise */

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per '''American''' DSM-IV-TR==

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

:* Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
:* Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
:* Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
:* Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
:* Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
:* Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
:* Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

:* Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
:* Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to ''anyone''?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different ''opinions'' about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that ''I'' judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Confusing ==

Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== This page has issues too. ==

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests.
A lot of these points are very questionable at best.
Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals.
--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the [[liberals]] here protested our entry [[Hollywood Values]], and watch how often the [[liberals]] on television and in magazines push [[Hollywood]]. That isn't coming from [[God]], and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:: Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really ''tricks''. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
:: Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that ''all'' the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
:: That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" ''are'' contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I wasn't trying to be specific; just explaining general principles. And although liberals hold to some views that are opposed to the Bible, this doesn't mean that every view held by non-liberals is consistent with the Bible; conservatives can also hold views opposed to the Bible. Take evolution for example. Many people who would otherwise be considered conservative believe in evolution, but I would think that almost all liberals believe in evolution, whilst most (not all) believers in creation would be conservatives. So people on both sides of a political fence can hold anti-biblical views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal friendship==
"liberals befriend you so you should become liberal (why don't they become conservative?)" You ''can't'' be serious. You're honestly saying someone like me befriends people solely because I want to convert them to the EEEEEEEEVIL of liberalism? Furthermore, what's with the stuff in quotes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Brackets. I meant brackets. Also, the first instance of liberal should be capitalized. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==

This article is great (like all the articles about liberals). But it should be in Category:Liberals.

[[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 10:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== My Apathetic-liberal-christian viewpoint ==
# Win an argument through luck
# Say that everyone's political view is just as biased, but doesn't affect you
# atheism = ignorance = not so blissful
# (me not learnded enough)
# ...I am now pro-Life ('nuff said)
# death comes to everyone, live today as it is with no worries about tomorrow
# it doesn't hurt to be lazy, unless it's your grades/performance we're talking about
# no one ever collectively agrees on one subject, so it must be false (exceptions: faith)
# Your own parents aren't cool, but 70% of the other parents (ie. your friend's parents) are cool
# No material thing is truly cool
# there is a shortage in piety
# disproving Christianity is for dummies
# kids are just being more smart-"butts" than old folks
# (see #1)
# call someone a [[racist]] when they are a [[nepotist]]
# some conservatives are jerks, as are liberals
# vandalism is alright, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... which is never
# if you like it, don't use it (wikipedia and teaching people about sexual impurity)
# justice never really works, eye for eye... everyone's dead/blind

+_+ [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 20:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Claiming expertise==

Alright, falsely claiming (or implying) to have expertise is in a particular area is a trick, but not an exclusively liberal one. Creationists often do exactly the same thing. For example, Philip E. Johnson, who is trained as a lawyer, not a scientist. Or William Dembski, who is a mathematician, not a biologist. Or Henry Morris, who is trained as an engineer. Or Kent Hovind, who very prominently referred to himself as a doctor, even though he got his degree through an unaccredited degree mill. Are they all liberals too? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:24, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

you are very correct! I recommend the article to be amended to reflect this. Hare Krishna!--[[User:Krishnapooja|Krishnapooja]] 09:27, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your examples are deficient because they do not represent ''claiming'' expertise beyond one's specialty. Philip Johnson does not claim special expertise, for example, beyond his legal profession. Rather, he provides compelling arguments for people to accept or reject based on the validity of his arguments, not his expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
::How about Andy Schlafly, who claims to know more about medicine than MDs do? (Soooo getting banned for this one. NOBODY sasses the Schlafinator on how own blog and lives to tell about it.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:19, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design controversy

2008-04-12T06:28:33Z

Gulik5:

"In fact, evolutionists have no answer to ID's arguments and therefore refuse to deal forthrightly with it's proponents."

ID eventually comes down to a godlike figure, which is supernatural, science deals with natural phenomena, and thus ID is not science. Science has no arguements to "A creator designed us." because it is impossible to refute. No matter what evidence there is for evolution, "A creator designed us" can still be said. There is no way to disprove it, it relies on the supernatural.

As for dealing with it's proponents, the major push of intelligent design seems to rest far more on trying to find fault with evolution, as opposed to offering good decent evidence (such a signature saying "Made in heaven" "Intelligence Inside" etc etc). Now I'm not complaining about this. Irreducible complexity on the molecular levels is a superb attack on evolution, and absolutely scientific in it's approach. But don't mistake a good attack on evolution, with any sort of positive evidence for any other approach. Pushing scientists to think up feasible routes for these moleculer devices to evolve is excellent work. You cannot expect them to come up with answers instantly, but after time to think, consider and examine, these problems reach plausible solutions.

If you are talking about a general refusal to debate intelligent designists, it's not suprising, an ID proponent can throw a large number of molecular devices at a single scientist who is perhaps an expert in one of these areas, and even then would require a period of time, and access to materials to work out an acceptable path. So in the debate it appears that the scientist is lost for words, where in fact he just can't give you the answer like that. It's like me asking the non-savants of you out there whats the square root of 3042894.124 and expecting an answer immediately whilst you aren't allowed access to a calculating device.

Now I'm not going to bother editing the page, since I know it would merely be reverted, but i felt the need to point out the necessary [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:ID opponents generally pretend that they "don't get the point", but this is simply because to address what ID is saying would be the first of a series of lost battles which would end in their utter defeat. The comment above exemplifies this trend.

:ID does not point to any godlike figure but makes the point that natural causes alone cannot account for the design of complex organisms, whether organs or cells. Materialism has no argument to account for the appearance of design for anything for complicated than salt crystals or snowflakes. "It evolved that way, and designs that can't compete are weeded out."

:Materialists dismiss the appearance of design because their philosophical assumptions preclude any alternative. To distract attention from the weakness of basis of their atheism, they pretend that ID's anti-evolutionary critique is a front for Creationism. My advice to them is the same as what Raggs wrote above: "But don't mistake a good attack on evolution, with any sort of positive evidence for any other approach." ID is not an argument '''for''' creation; rather it is an argument '''against''' evolution.

:It is because atheists and materialists don't want their arguments to be examined that they imprison, expel or fire anyone who dares challenge them. In the [[marketplace of ideas]], their product would not sell, so they insist on having a [[monopoly]].

:Evolution cannot account for [[molecular devices]]. The rules of the "game" state that if you can't show how gradual changes could accumulate, then your theory doesn't hold water. It is the [[irreducible complexity]] of the [[eye]] and the [[flagellum]], among many other examples, which show that natural forces alone are insufficient to account for the design of complex organs and cells.

:By the way, a [[square root]] can be calculated without a machine, using procedures known to mathematicians centuries before the invention of electronic calculators. So "can't explain it" really does mean "the theory simply is no good"; see [[theory and fact]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:"''ID eventually comes down to a godlike figure, which is supernatural, science deals with natural phenomena, and thus ID is not science''": This is wrong in two respects. First, although you are correct that ID ''eventually'' comes down to a god figure, other ''immediate'' (hypothetical) possibilities include aliens. They are ''not'' supernatural, so ID is within the realm of science.
:Second, science only dealing with the natural does not preclude it from inferring a designer. Archaeologists find stone artifacts which they can determine are stone ''tools'', fashioned by an ''intelligent being'', and do not have to identify or study that being in order to come to that conclusion. Concluding that life had an intelligent designer is exactly the same thing in principle, and that designer possibly or probably being God does not prevent science from reaching that conclusion. However, that designer probably being God is a strong motive for misotheists to reject Intelligent Design—for religious reasons!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::''It is because atheists and materialists don't want their arguments to be examined that they imprison, expel or fire anyone who dares challenge them.'' Buwha? Who's gone to JAIL for blaspheming against the Gospel of Darwin?! Most of the time, us materialists prefer to just point and laugh. I do hope you're not talking about Kent Hovind (who went to prison for tax fraud), or Al York (who stabbed a man to death....for arguing with him about evolution).
::Intelligent Design is NOT a "scientific theory". It makes no useful predictions, proposes no experiments. It only exists as a rather transparent attempt to get Creationism back into schools, where they think it belongs. And the courts have decided it fails at that, too.
::And just so you know, those pesky Evilutionists have [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html already done the flagellum].
::[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html AND the eye.] --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I can't at the moment think of anyone going to jail, but otherwise see [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Your claim about predictions and experiments is disputed, not self-evident truth, and your claim about the reason for its existence is rhetoric. The Talk.Origins explanations of the flagellum and the eye are just-so stories, not scientific descriptions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:02, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Gulik, are you trying to change the subject? ID says that evolution can't explain design, and you veer off into a quibble about whether my generalization about atheists and materialists applies to '''all cases''' of dispute about ID. That is specious reasoning, and it has no place on an article discussion page. Save it for the our [[Debate Topics]], if you plan to stay around.

More to the point, you may already be aware of American scholars who have been fired from their jobs for - as you put it - "blaspheming against the Gospel of Darwin". Perhaps I should assign you to google this up and add it to [[Expelled]].

Is the standard for a scientific theory that it must make predictions? Then how about [[plate tectonics]]? What predictions does it make? More to the point, name 3 predictions that the [[theory of evolution]] makes. Then explain what tests were conducted to see if those predictions came true.

If you are well verse in these matters, you may want to collaborate with me on such articles as [[Philosophy of science]] and [[Scientific method]]. Or at least [[Falsifiability]]. For example, name a kind of experiment or observation or discovery that could possibly "falsify" evolution. If you can't - indeed, if no one can - than we'd have to classify [[evolution]] as [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Experiment to falsify the currently-accepted model of evolution: Dig up a fossil of a ''Tyrannosaurus Rex'' that died from choking to death on a ''Homo Sapiens''. There. Any other area with blatantly anachronistic fossils (such as modern birds mixed in with Trilobites, flowers in the Silurian age, etc.) would do the trick as well. Conversely, you could also disprove evolution with that old Creationist canard, a cat 'evolving' into a rabbit in one generation. So would verifiable proof of Lamarckian evolution--the inheritance of acquired traits.

::{{cquote|Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:
* Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
* Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
* Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
* Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
(From Talkorigins.org, your one-stop shop for rebuttals to the Factory-Extruded Creationist Arguments!)}}
::{{cquote|Plate tectonics was uncertain as recently as the 1960s, but evidence in its favor has become overwhelming:

* Plate motions are measured directly (Davidson et al. 1997).
* The eastern edge of the continental shelves of North and South America fit closely (within 50 km) with the western continental shelves of Africa and Europe (Bishop 1981). The Mid-Atlantic Ridge has the same shape.
* Plant and animal fossil distributions, geological formations, and indications of ancient climate match up in Africa and South America as if the continents once fit together (Davidson et al. 1997).
* When new rocks are formed, they record the earth's current magnetic field, which reverses occasionally. The magnetic field pattern recorded in the sea floor rocks shows bands mirrored across a spreading center (Bishop 1981; Davidson et al. 1997). (See also Magnetic reversals.)
* Paleomagnetic studies show different polar wandering on different continents, indicating that the continents moved relative to one another (Bishop 1981; Davidson et al. 1997).
* Oceanic sediments are young and thin, indicating that sea basins are relatively young (Graham 1981).
* Maps of earthquake locations show plate boundaries and the paths of subducting plates (Davidson et al. 1997; Graham 1981).
* Hot spots leave trails such as volcanic island chains as the plates move over them (Davidson et al. 1997).
(More from talkorigins. Sorry for the unoriginality, but I'm on my lunch break.)}}

::As for ''Expelled''--I'd want a biologist who taught Creationism moved to a non-teaching position for roughly the same reason I'd rather not be operated on by a doctor who rejected modern medicine in favor of the Four Humor theory of treatment.

::Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from, even it if is all a flimsy tissue of rationalizations over my seething hatred of God and America fnord.
::I'd better go edit something now. Don't want a 90/10 block for <s>disrespect towards my betters</s>unproductive edits, after all. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:25, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

To add since this was removed from the original Intelligent design talk page during the moves of the article...

<blockquote>
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.

The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”
</blockquote>

Whereas Gulik provided much research to support evolution, Intelligent Design has yet to produce research or a mechanism outside of the mechanisms of evolution to support their hypothesis. Something to add is that most new concepts of science begin in the collegiate academic environment where they undergo testing and verification before being trickled down to the general public and secondary and primary education systems, therefore intelligent design is suspect of circumventing this practice do to a failure of meeting the standards necessary to be a competing theory in the aforementioned environment, which leads many to conclude that the proponents of intelligent design are trying to indoctrinate instead of allowing the application of rational debate for defense of their hypothesis. The major concern is that by allowing the circumvention of the testing and debate in the academic environment sets a standard for other untested, non qualified concepts to be taught with a scientific label. I personally feel it is fine for intelligent design to be taught in a theological setting not a scientific one. This debate with evolution is a bit unreasonable due to evolution's stance in the biological sciences, if intelligent design wanted to replace evolution then it should have followed the standard, much like string theory has been for the past 20 years. This motivation is also suspect since when has a scientific concept not taken more than 10 years to reach the public? Why push intelligent design on school children with less than 10 years of development, let alone testing and research? Like I said the motivations behind the intelligent design proponents are suspect.
--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:44, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
: Gulik5, can you unequivocally demonstrate that "Dig[ging] up a fossil of a Tyrannosaurus Rex that died from choking to death on a Homo Sapiens" ''would'' falsify evolution? Because I don't think it would. Rather, the evolutionists would simply (and finally) admit that T-rex must have survived longer than they have previously claimed, and not admit to any falsification of evolution itself at all. For more on this, see [[falsifiability of evolution]] and [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism]].
: I don't find the Talk.Origins examples convincing. Some of them appear to ''assume'' evolution in order to demonstrate evolution. For example, human evolution in Africa ''assumes'' that humans have evolved, but that has not been demonstrated. Also, some of the examples give too little information to judge them.
: I also suspect that some of the "evolutionary" predictions have little if anything to do with evolution at all. That is, the same predictions could also be made by creationists. This likely applies to the one about high mutation rates, for example.
: Certainly the plate tectonics example falls into the category above. Plate tectonics was originally proposed by a creationist, partly on the basis of the account in Genesis. And the scientist with what is acknowledged as the best computer simulation of plate tectonics is a young-Earth creationist (who believes that it happened ''quickly'', during Noah's Flood). So, plate tectonics is not an evolutionary prediction at all, but a prediction made by both camps.
: And this highlights a very large part of the creation/evolution/ID controversy: The evolutionists have almost no idea just what creationists (and ID proponents) actually propose, so a large part of their "rebuttal" of creationism and ID is straw-man arguments, pointless arguments, and plain nonsense. The fact that you repeated this nonsense here shows that ''you'' don't know what you are talking about either, so have little credibility in this discussion. Your comment about creationist biologists is more such nonsense. Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts, but disagrees on how living things came about. That is, they agree on the observable ''facts'', not on the unobserved ''history''. So comparisons with doctors who don't accept modern ''observations'' are totally invalid and merely show your ignorance of the issue.
: And by the way, one of your points copied from Talk.Origins, the magnetic striping bit, provides an example of a successful ''creationist'' prediction (see [[Plate tectonics#Biblical View|here]]).
: The ISSR statement is nonsense too. It says that "Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points", ignoring that because ID is not considered science, nobody will give them funds to have such research programs! Thus "ID is not science > therefore it is not funded for research > therefore, having no research, it is not science" = circular argument.
: Further, it says that it "[deplores] efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion", ignoring that ID is ''not'' aiming to do that, and in fact the ISSR is doing that by trying to argue that the two are totally unrelated.
: Able806 omits mentioning that many new ideas in science are rejected by the majority initially, and only after fighting against the establishment for many years do the new ideas become accepted. And because the establishment is against these new ideas, the ideas have to be promoted in other avenues than the normal academic avenues. Again, it is a circular argument that ID is not scientific because it's not discussed in the "proper" channels, but it's not allowed to be discussed in the proper channels because it's not scientific!
: As for claims of indoctrination, this is a case of when pointing the finger at someone, you have three pointing back at yourself. It's the evolutionists that have a stranglehold on the school system, with even efforts to tell students that they should keep an open mind about evolution being taken to court and stopped. When evolutionists prevent students being told that they should keep an open mind, they are indoctrinating. When they then accuse their opposition of indoctrination, they are being hypocrites. And Able806 has the gall to question the motives of ID proponents!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::'' Gulik5, can you unequivocally demonstrate that "Dig[ging] up a fossil of a Tyrannosaurus Rex that died from choking to death on a Homo Sapiens" ''would'' falsify evolution? Because I don't think it would. ''
::Yeah, it pretty well would. It would mean that modern science is '''dead wrong''' about fossil formation, sedimentation, the timeline of Earth's history, when humanity evolved, and about twenty other things. Alternately, it COULD just mean someone developed a time-machine and wasn't very cautious, which would be equally huge, but more a matter for physicists. But, since on Planet Conservapedia, scientists are just the High Priests of the First Atheistic Church of Darwin, I'm sure you just expect them to take a gravel-crusher to the evidence, and burn as heretics anyone who claims to have seen it fnord.
::Let me turn that around on you, Phil: What would it take for YOU to admit that Creationism/ID was '''wrong'''? Preferrably something scientists could conceivably come up with, short of God Himself coming down and saying "DON'T BLAME ME FOR YOUR BADLY DESIGNED CARCASSES, I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT."?
::If the IDers don't have any funding, who keeps bankrolling groups like the Creation Museum?
::If you want scientists to tolerate 'alternatiove theories', '''Come up with some'''. Velikovsky-style efforts to rewrite the laws of physics in order to treat the Book of Genesis as a science textbook don't convince anyone who isn't already a True Believer. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::: You've continued to demonstrate that you don't understand the creation/evolution issue, yet you keep talking about it under the self-delusion that you do.
::: But to start with the first point, you have not convinced me at all how it would falsify evolution (which you wrongly equate with science). You don't explain, for example, how it would mean that science was wrong about fossil formation, sedimentation, or those "twenty other things". The ''only'' thing that I could see that would be upset that you mentioned are "the timeline of Earth's history", and then only one little bit of that, and ''possibly'' "when humanity evolved".
::: If human and dinosaur fossils were found together, the ''only'' thing it would mean (other than explanations such as intrusive burials, etc.) is that either (a) dinosaurs survived well past their 65-million-years-ago extinction, or (b) that humans evolved 65 million years ago, not around a million years ago. The first option is far more plausible, so I believe that evolutionists would simply claim that at least some dinosaurs survived until much more recent times, such as around one million years ago. Now the question is, how would some dinosaurs surviving until relatively recent times invalidate evolution? We already have examples of living things that supposedly went extinct around 65 million years ago turning up alive (Coelacanth, Wollemi Pine), and evolution didn't miss a beat. What real difference would it make if a T-rex was found in million-year old sediments? I asked if you could unequivocally demonstrate how this would falsify evolution. You ''haven't even come close'' to demonstrating it. All you've done is restate the claim in other ways.
::: Therefore your derisive comments about "Planet Conservapedia" are nothing more than ''ad hominem'' abuse, seemingly in an attempt to divert attention from your lack of an answer.
::: What would it take me to admit that creationism was wrong? See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism]]
::: The creation museum was built by creationists, not ID proponents. But yes, it's true that creationists and ID proponents have ''some'' funds available, but are not funded for research like evolutionists are. The only funds they have are donations from private individuals, which are a drop in the bucket compared to evolutionary funding. But if you are suggesting that creationists and ID proponents have done ''no research at all'', then you are wrong, as with the extremely limited funding they have, they have done ''some'' research. Sometimes at their own cost.
::: Again, your derogatory comments about rewriting the laws of physics show that you have no idea what you are talking about. How about coming up with some decent arguments instead of ''ad hominem'' attacks, rhetoric, and falsehoods?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Philip, I would have to agree with your assumption about Gulik5's example not falsifiying evolution. Gulik5’s example is a little off, in that the extinction date of T-Rex would be moved if the human were to be found in one’s mouth. However, if a human fossil were to be found in a Paleozoic stratum then evolution would be falsified due to mammals not being around at that point and certainly not humans. This is a pretty clear example.
::::The Talk Origins archive has been pieced together, that is true, however the research cited in the archive is where the real meat is. Scientists often are too technical for the layman therefore difficult to read and understand. As such it would be better if talk origins would clarify some of the research like a layman’s abstract if you will of the research.
::::The ISSR statement, the discovery institute does fund research for ID. Since they are a non-profit you can review their income and how much they are funding. In 2003 they had an income of 4.1 million and were offering research grants. They even have their own lab set up for research. It is just that the ID community has yet to publish anything or even announce the intent to publish any work. I would disagree with the comment that ID is not aiming to drive a wedge between science and religion, a document was leaked from the discovery institute entitled the wedge strategy that basically stated just that to drive a wedge between science and religion. This document is freely searchable on line and the discovery institute happens to have the big names of ID at their helm so there is no denying the wedge strategy is linked with ID’s motives.
::::Actually Phillip, I did mention that many new ideas in science are rejected, my string theory example. String theory is not fully accepted by the scientific community, and it has been available for the past 20 years. String theory did not have to go to other avenues, it stayed with academia; who were reviewing it and allowing for peer reviews until something really workable could come about from it before it was released to the general populous. In fact, it still is not taught in schools because of its shakiness. As I pointed out above, why would ID circumvent this process and go straight to the schools? ID is allowed to be discussed in the scientific community; it is often not discussed since there are no proposed hypothetical mechanisms for how ID occurs. In fact many scientists have been asking this (the hypothetical mechanisms) for several years now, to which those proponents of ID have yet to respond.
::::Phillip, as for indoctrination, I tell my students (I am a PhD candidate) to keep an open mind because science changes as new discoveries are made. However, when something has been shown to be upheld through much testing and is a basis for fundamental understanding of a concept then it would be folly to tell the student to keep an open mind when the evidence is so one-sided. To do so would offer more confusion than absolution this would defeat the purpose of learning. An example would be the simple physics of gravity, there are many different ideas surrounding gravity however in a physic’s course in high school one would find the most fundamental understanding of what gravity does, not how it really works. Same with evolution, in high school biology a person finds what evolution does, not how it works. You do not get into that until some very specific high level courses in the biological sciences, just as you would with gravity being found in higher level physics courses. No one questions gravity being taught or labels it as indoctrination however evolution is labeled as such even when its premise is just as important to understanding higher level biology as gravity is to understanding higher level physics.
::::I would like to continue this converstation but I do not wish to abuse the allowence that EdPoor gave me by unblocking my account. So I shall finish up my work on a couple of articles.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:32, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: If a human fossil were to be found in a Paleozoic stratum, and that couldn't be explained away by intrusive burial or something, then most likely the stratum would be reclassified so that it wasn't Paleozoic. Of course, I can't claim that with certainty, but you can't deny it with certainty either. We'd both have to wait and see. But as the [[falsifiability of evolution]] page documents, tests that supposedly would falsify evolution have been found to have passed (failed?) (e.g. magnets), yet evolution continues on as though nothing happened. So I would not be convinced that a human fossil found in Paleozoic stratum would succeed either—some way of accommodating it would be found (as I'd expect, actually. I don't expect ''any'' single discovery would falsify evolution).
::::: I accept that the Talk.Origins arguments are layman's versions, but I don't really accept that they can therefore make them so brief that one is unable to determine that they really do have an argument. And I've seen many arguments on Talk.Origins that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
::::: Initially I guess I overstated the ID research issue a bit. There is, as I later said, ''some'' funding available (although, as I also said, the funds available are a drop in the bucket compared to evolutionary research). Also, I'm more familiar with creationist research than ID research, and there ''has'' been some of that, and it ''has'' been published (in creationist publications, of course, because mainstream publications refuse to touch it for ideological reasons).
::::: I've just had a quick read of the Wedge Document, and I can't see anything in there about driving a wedge between science and religion. Perhaps you could point out to me the exact part?
::::: There's a difference between "not fully accepted" (which you didn't mention when you mentioned string theory) and "rejected". And as you said, string theory did not "have to" go to other avenues. It was allowed to be discussed in the scientific journals. But you yourself say that ID should not be, but should be discussed in a theological setting. ID did not "circumvent" that process, but was ''barred from'' that process. It is ''not'' allowed to be discussed. Just see the uproar when an ID paper ''was'' published in a peer-reviewed journal. The journal said that they would never do so again!
::::: Evolution has ''not'' "been shown to be upheld through much testing and is a basis for fundamental understanding of a concept". That's just evolutionist rhetoric. The difference between gravity and evolution (why does ''that'' comparison come up so often?? At least I can keep using the same reply!) is that gravity is ''observed'', unlike molecules-to-man evolution. Also, who disagrees with gravity? Creation and ID are a small minority view, but not that small. That is, there are thousands or tens of thousands of scientists who agree with creation and/or ID. And giving students both sides of this issue and explaining how to determine which is the better explanation would actually be a very good teaching approach.
::::: Thanks for actually addressing the points that I made, and for doing so civilly. Too often critics are derogatory and keep throwing up new objections without actually addressing the responses that have been made.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, Creationism '''is''' a minority view. Just about every organized group of Christians outside the United States (and most fo the ones inside) are perfectly OK with believing in both the Bible and that "when God made Man, He used a Monkey to do it."
::::::Let me quote the Wedge Document: ''However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.'' <ref>[http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html The Wedge Document]</ref> Never mind that "god did it" makes for a LOUSY scientific theory, and has never made anything useful the way Scientific Materialism has--polio vaccine, light bulbs, neutron bombs. All of which work fine even if you don't have any Faith in them.
::::::And on the acedemic front, there are more scientists [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/ named Steve] who support evolution than there are Creationist/ID scientists, '''period'''. :) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:53, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Roughly 50% of Americans believe that man was created, not evolved, so I'm not so sure that your claim of it being a minority view is correct. But neither am I sure what your point was there, because I never claimed it to be the majority view.
::::::: Similarly, although many Christians outside the U.S. are prepared to accept (theistic) evolution, I'm by no means convinced that most accept the evolution of man from a monkey.
::::::: You are confusing "scientific materialism" with "science". "Materialism" means a number of things, including being overly concerned with having possessions. In the realm of science, "materialism" (i.e. "scientific materialism") is the ''belief'' that ''matter'' is all there is; i.e., there is no supernatural. It is ''science'' (founded on Christian principles) that has produce the polio vaccine, light bulbs, and neutron bombs, not scientific materialism.
::::::: I've never denied that evolutionists vastly outnumber creationists and ID proponents. But science is not a popularity contest. And the number of scientists who signed the Project Steve list is smaller than the number of creationist scientists. However, you're really comparing one incomplete list with another incomplete list, which proves nothing.
::::::: And does this post indicate that you are dropping your attempt to show that evolution is falsifiable? I guess you noted that even fellow-evolutionist Able806 said that your example didn't work.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::'' In the realm of science, "materialism" (i.e. "scientific materialism") is the ''belief'' that ''matter'' is all there is; i.e., there is no supernatural. It is ''science'' (founded on Christian principles) that has produce the polio vaccine, light bulbs, and neutron bombs, not scientific materialism.''
:::::::::OOooookay. First of all, where in the Bible do you see ANYTHING that sounds even remotely like the scientific method? I must've missed that bit. Secondly, science, by definition, HAS to be about the "natural", because there's '''no such thing''' as the "supernatural". Once something occurs, it is '''part of nature'''. If an angel were to visit earth, it would have mass, chemical composition, body heat, would show up on cameras (or be making ANOTHER Miracle by NOT showing up) and could (theoretically) be quizzed about Heaven.
:::::::::One of the basic, fundamental concepts of science is '''reproduceability'''. If an experiment can't be replicated, it's no good. This, in turn is based on the idea that the fundamental physical principles of of the universe are invariant, and that '''the universe is not deliberately trying to fool us.'''
:::::::::''I'm by no means convinced that most accept the evolution of man from a monkey.'' Good thing that's '''not how it's supposed to have happened''', then. (Both Homo Sapiens and Cercopithecoidea evolved from a common ancestor, long, looong ago.) Considering how long you've been arguing this stuff, you could at least get the details right.
:::::::::You said: ''And does this post indicate that you are dropping your attempt to show that evolution is falsifiable? I guess you noted that even fellow-evolutionist Able806 said that your example didn't work.''
:::::::::Uh, '''no''', since Able immediately provided an example of a way to falsify evolution that's '''better than mine'''. He said: '' However, if a human fossil were to be found in a Paleozoic stratum then evolution would be falsified due to mammals not being around at that point and certainly not humans. This is a pretty clear example.'' Did you actually read what he wrote, or just skim it for mineable quotes?
:::::::::Another good way to falsify evolution might be a sudden, massive mutation--like a human being spontaneously growing semifunctional feathered wings. That would throw a serious monkey-wrench in the whole 'no irreducible complexity' thing. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 02:28, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

United States presidential elections

2008-04-10T17:18:04Z

Gulik5:

'''United States presidential elections''' began in the [[United States presidential election, 1789|1789 Presidential election]] with the election of [[George Washington]]. The election which occured after it happened three years later in the [[United States presidential election, 1800|1800 Presidential election]]. Since then they have all occured four years apart and November 4 has become the scheduled election day. The most recent presidential election happened in 2004. The next one will be in 2008.

[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:United States presidential elections| ]]

Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story

2008-04-10T17:08:02Z

Gulik5: /* Inspired Word of God or Not */

Very interesting exegisis. However, once you open the door to historical scholarship of authorship of the various books of the bible, i dont think you will be pleased with the results. It is, however, a wonderful, vibrant field of scholarship.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I too have followed this trend, you speak of. However, I do question the wisdom of deconstructing ancient texts, merely to remove the scholarly foundations for modern day Liberal babble. The parable attributed to Jesus is a valuable one, a logical argument for man not to talk out of both sides of his mouth, eh?--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed! But please don't mistake the musings of someone in advanced middle-age for dissent, but merely waxing nostalgic for the time I remember when it was never considered acceptable (or tolerated, for that matter) to bastardize the teachings of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ, to further contemporary political agendas on the part of the Left. I was made to remember having that trend pointed out to me by Norvel Young, when he was still Chancellor at Pepperdine, as something to be vigilant about....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I fear my ignorance prevents me from fully understandcing Terry. Be that as it may, Andy, I understand your point, but if we are to "purge" the" bible of so-called non-original material, it should be done EVERYWHERE, which means some may have a result you like, some may not. Another big "however" is that the parable depends on interpretation, as all parables do. So, you could interpret it as a liberal allegory against the death penalty (although if it was added to the bible, it was done very long ago, before the debate was relevant), or one could see it as a simple plea for Christian Mercy and the recognition of sin present in us all. It does not say anywhere never to kill anyone...that is preserved for the Ten Commandments (and even that wording is subject to interpretation). There is nothing inherent in the parable against the death penalty, simply a recognition that the judgement of man is inherently flawed, especially when measured againg the judgement of the Lord. It does make for an interesting sermon, though.
Really it comes down to how you define Biblical literalism. Is the Bible word-for-word true? Which Bible? Which translation? The Apocrypha? The Gnostic Gospels? I don't know the answer. In Judaism, for instance, ancient scholars essentially recognized that Man's understanding is non-divine, therefore flawed, and they spent centuries trying to fully understand the word of God as layed out in the Tanakh (the Jewish portions of the Bible). Christianity has certainly had millenia of interpreters.
The biggest problem, though, is that stated above. Canon was set down long ago. What is included in the Bible has been there for a long time. If you wish to created a new Canon, terrific...it's a huge and interesting task. Be careful, however, about reading modern motivations into ancient voices, such as this (perhaps later-included) parable. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 00:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily think that this has a "liberal bent", particularly because I've always interpreted this passage (not knowing the controversy over its inclusion in the Bible) as I've thought that Jesus let the woman go because the men were not interested in the woman, but only trying to trap Jesus (notice they never tried to do anything with the man that was presumably also involved in the adultery). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The title misspells Adulteress. The text has a correct spelling. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The essay says "This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else." Without the other claims to its inauthenticity, this is a weak one. There are many things that are found in one gospel but not in others.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

John's Gospel was essentially a "cutting and pasting" of other works, careful reading will show that there are several literary seams. Besides, many parts of the New testament were added later or are by pseudonymous authors calling themselves Paul. Are you suggesting that several epistles be removed, including most of the resurrection story at the end of Mark. This "research" is "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Besides, it's scripture and officially recognized as canon and sacred and you yourself cannot decide what does and does not belong based on interpretations of it. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

:The style is actually very Johannine, and the message it transmits is actually central to understanding Christ throughout the entire New Testament! What is Yeshua actually saying? He isn't saying that it is wrong to make moral judgements, and in fact at John 7:24 He says quite clearly: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." So why does He speak of those present needing to be without sin? Because they were complicit in setting a trap for Him, using this woman as bait. "[They] said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him." The Jews no longer had the right to execute, as this had been removed by the Romans in AD 30. So if He said that she should be executed, they would accuse Him of sedition against the Romans, and if He ordered her to be released, they would accuse Him of breaking Mosaic law. A very cleverly sprung trap. But Yeshua is the AUTHOR of the Law, and He knows full well that both parties were to be produced and prosecuted ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:22;&version=31; Deut. 22:22]). Yeshua understands the set-up, as would contemporary readers. We don't even know if adultery ''had'' been committed, that the woman herself isn't part of the trap. But He makes it quite clear that He sees their conspiracy, which is why He won't codemn nor pardon as they want Him to, but instead asks all present to examine their own parts, their own guilt in this. He even puts them on the spot to go ahead and do what they are asking Him to do.

:Does He give license to sin with His words to the throng and the woman? Of course not - ''He gives forgiveness, the central tenet of the Christian religion, as only He can!'' He is willing to pay the penalty for her sins Himself - "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. '''But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense''' — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. '''He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world'''." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:1-2;&version=31; 1 John 2:1-2]).

:Does this passage appear in ''all'' early manuscripts? No. Does that mean it was an addition? Or more likely a deliberate ommission? The early church fathers accepted it and quoted it, and Ambrose and Augustine were both quite sure that it was an ommission not an addition. Why ommit it? Because its message of forgiveness, of G-d accepting that we can sin but reform, didn't sit comfortably with those who wanted a religion which gave more latitude to condemn than forgive. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Well put, Fox. I wouldn't know about all that background material (e.g. Ambrose and Augustine), but certainly I've never had a problem with the passage when sceptics have quoted it at me. The Bible was written for 'a "high context" society -- background data is assumed to be known; no need is seen to re-explain things again and again that the readers already know'[http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty200.html]. That is, the people of the time (actually, most cultures throughout time) would have understood that when Jesus referred to those "without sin", He ''could not'' have been meaning ''without any sin at all'', but something more specific and relevant, such as ''sin related to this issue'', whether that be their own infidelities or their sin of setting him up. As such, sceptic use of this passage to teach against the death penalty or against judging another is misplaced in any case, and we don't have to resort to saying that the passage should not be there in order to answer it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree too. I think it's extremely dangerous and misguided to embroil the teachings of Christ into the polarised politics of today. That way leads to fragmentation and internal strive within the broad church and, let's face it, it doesn't need any more of that. This insistence on trying to equate being a good Christian with being a conservative is too ridiculous for words. Christianity is supposed to be about inclusion and tolerance, a couple of traits sorely lacking here. Of course using Christ's teachings to argue about particular issues such as abortion or morality is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable. But equating them with left and right is simply shallow and not at all theological. While liberals may well be more predisposed to be agnostics or atheists, that by no means makes none of them Christians. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 18:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: [[Atheism]] and much of [[liberal]] ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adulteress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::OK. I'll inform the Vatican. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: "The adulteress story is plainly not authentic...": No, this is not plain at all. In fact, it sounds very much like you are saying that it doesn't ''appear'' to be authentic, rather than having actual reasons. If so, this is you making yourself the judge of what's canonical and what's not. However, perhaps you meant that ''the evidence'' is plainly on the side of it being not authentic. Some do agree with you that the evidence is sufficient, but others don't agree, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is ''plainly'' not authentic.
::::: "''...it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda.''": So is Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged"). Does that mean that Matthew 7:1 doesn't belong either? No, this is not a valid reason.
::::: The ''only'' valid reason is convincing evidence that it was added later. All other reasons are invalid, meaningless, or heretical.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adulteress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that ''most'' scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is ''true'', just not put there by John. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: It makes no sense for a scholar (a liberal one?) to insist that the story was added later but is still true. John did not release his Gospel until longer after all the other Apostles, and likely all the eyewitnesses, had died. There is no basis for asserting that the fraudulently added story is still true, and many reasons to conclude it is not true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that someone that argues that the account does not belong in the Bible is a liberal?

According to a Samuel P. Tregelles in 1854:
{{QuoteBox|Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel, and though I regard the endeavors to make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history. And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded actions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been transmitted to us. This, from the variety of its forms, seems to have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps some one added it at the end of John's Gospel [one of the places it is found in some manuscripts—PJR], as one of the "many things which Jesus did which are not written in this book," and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to belong.}}
Bruce Metzger:
{{QuoteBox|...the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. 
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places.}}
Raymond E. Brown:
{{QuoteBox|However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the East and is truly ancient (see Schilling, art. cit.). ... From the standpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like some of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke xx 20, 27). There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for this thesis.}}
These are from [http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html here]. What reasons do you have for asserting that it is ''not'' true?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Apparently the above three quoted individuals like the story, but that's no justification for giving in to a hoax. The story has unmistakable [[liberal]] overtones and that is a "reason for doubting that it contains a true narration." Details of the story (like Jesus writing, or crediting an inherent value to age, or obtaining 100% acceptance of his teaching) are non-existent or even disproved by authentic portions of the New Testament.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:I am unfamiliar with these other scholars, but Bruce Metzger was one of the most well known conservative biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was certainly no liberal. I do not see how the fact that their interpretation of the origin of the story directly equates to whether they like the story or not - there is no room for personal opinion or likes in sound biblical exegesis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm not aware that Bruce Metzger was a [[conservative]], though he may have rejected [[professor values]] of his academic colleagues. His reasoning above does not persuade, as there were many "oral traditions" (like the "Gospel of Thomas") that were properly rejected as not authentic. In the case of the adulteress story, the hoaxsters (vandals?) were more clever about it, appending or inserting it into an authentic work. It is analogous to clever vandalism on wikis today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: It's quite inappropriate to describe those three individuals as "liking" the story, as though they had a gooey feeling rather than good research. I've answered below about Jesus writing, but how is any of the story "disproved" by other portions of the New Testament? Your 17:07 post is mainly mere assertion, and does nothing to support your case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:45, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

== What Constitutes Gospel? ==

I think Fox has a convincing take on why this may not be an addition. But even if it's not original, I have to ask how we can be sure that the Almighty wasn't working through whoever added it. {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}

: Your faulty logic would apply to anything, including additions or amendments to today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, what's the fault in it? When did God stop talking to and acting through man? {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}
: The Bible indicates that it is complete. Anything added after it is complete is not canonical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, and the adulteress story was indisputably added later. Even the evangelical, conservative translation (NIV) expressly notes that in its version.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Yup. It has brackets around it in mine but curiously doesn't say why. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::: It is not "indisputably" added later. Some ''do'' dispute it. The NIV's note (I'd be surprised if yours doesn't say why, Ajkgordon), does not say that it was added later. It says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.". The ''implication'' is that it was added later, but being added later is not what the NIV ''says''. And the implication could be wrong. I'm not saying that it ''is'' wrong; just that it could be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It might, Philip, but I can't see it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Begging your pardon. It's the King James and it makes no mention at all, not even brackets. I must have been thinking of another version. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:02, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

== A reason to "conserve" the story ==

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for this essay. I don't know why I overlooked it up to now.

You make a very good point about how liberals misuse the admonition, "Don't judge":

* The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. But one need not be perfect before he can recognize and punish wrongdoing in himself and others. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.

Liberals are obviously hypocritical about this, making most of their political ideas into moral issues (e.g., "saving" the environment) and then criticizing others who don't adopt their ideas - often even while violating their own moral dictates themselves. [[Hypocrisy]] and [[double standards]] are generally a smokescreen to cover up one's own wrong-doing.

Another interpretation of the [[Jesus and the adulterous woman]] story is that of God's [[mercy]] and forgiveness. When I've taught this story in Sunday School, I tell the children that the key points are:

#Jesus does not condemn the woman to immediate execution by mob violence, but he does not excuse the act of adultery either
#He shames each member of the mob by "writing on the ground" - we can only speculate on what Jesus wrote, but wouldn't it be interesting if it was the sins committed by the accusers?
#He admonishes the woman to stop sinning: "Go and sin no more"

A conservative interpretation of the story might be that God still '''disapproves of sin''' and yet is not always willing that a sinner be punished. The point being that He desires obedience to His moral rules, and if a magnanimous act of mercy can encourage a sinner to repent this could be an effective mode of preaching. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Ed, you've put the best face on a hoax. But it's still a hoax, and a [[liberal]] one at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Of course, now that you've shattered people's faith on ONE part of the Bible, what possible reason do they have to believe any of the rest of it? Are you going to "debunk" the Sermon On The Mount next, or maybe the [http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Book of Exodus]? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The actual argument (despite impressions you might get from Andy's comments about it being loved by liberals) is that the ''manuscript evidence'' shows that the passage doesn't belong in the Bible. You cannot make that argument against almost all the rest of the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5's argument may appeal to the dimwitted, but not to anyone else who values reasoned analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Precisely. And in my analysis, this particular passage is apparently an afterthought, and tacking on extra text goes against Christian thought, as I think Philip explained above. Moreover, the main problem with the story is that - even if it were considered legitimate, the wrong lesson is being taught from it. Jesus never said we shouldn't evaluate the actions of other people as right or wrong and "look only" at our own selves. That false lesson is used by defenders of all sorts of moral evils, when they argue that "according to your own rules you can't judge anyone". I guess they think only they have the right to judge and condemn and order people around, but the Bible does not approve of their opposition to properly constituted authority. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Gulik5 may have a point. After all, Timothy I, Timothy II, and Titus reflect a level of Church organization that did not exist at that early date. Consider also the lengthy interlocution in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Paul's Greek was very good, but in Corinthians I, there is a long run on sentence, that does not fit with the rest of Pauline corpus--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 14:44, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: You write as though this is a new idea. This sort of analysis of the Bible has been going on ever since it was written. The authenticity of the particular passage in question here was being debated 1,600 years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If that's your view, then you won't be relying on anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, I think you are exactly right. Perhaps if we critically examine the Bible, we will find some things that are correct, but much that we cannot verify, and should consider false.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 17:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: At issue is not an inability to verify, but hard evidence that early copies of the Bible did not have this passage. Please try sticking to the argument and not going off on tangents. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I am sorry. I will not go "off on tangents" again. Given Sysop's responses on other issues (such as whether or not certain people are professors), I assumed that tangents were perfectly acceptable on Conservapedia. Nevertheless, I do think Aschlafly raises an important point, perhaps the Bible should be examined and all of the material that has added by liberals over the centuries should be purged. Then the Good Book will be truly conservative--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 08:31, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Let's try this, Andy. You're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 18:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: That depends on what you mean by "clearly aren't". At issue here is a passage that was not in most or all of the early copies of the Bible, but strongly appears to have been added later. If your question is "our current Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that were not in the original Bibles", then the answer is yes. But your question was too ambiguous to answer that way. By the way, I've effectively already pointed this out in earlier posts above, so you don't really have any excuse for misunderstanding that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Mathewson and Devotchka are illustrating point 1 in [[liberal tricks]]. Perhaps they're hoping their fallacious arguments will fool a dimwitted viewer. Just a little thought is required to realize that non-authentic material is not biblical, such as the Gospel of Thomas.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I didn't advance any argument - I asked for clarification. I'll try again: you're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 19:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, so now you're going to try logical sophistry. "Parts that clearly aren't" in the Bible are not part of the Bible. Can you follow that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Yes. Just like I can follow "Cities that clearly aren't" in America are not part of America. Are you going to answer my question or not? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 19:20, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Inspired Word of God or Not ==

I trust God to hand The Bible to us in it's correct and accurate form. I have to. The Bible is the inspired Word of God as it has passed through many human hands. I trust God to do His work in this respect and ensure His Word is kept accurate, true and Holy. Clearly you do not trust God in this regard. I think you have crossed a line here.

I resign from this project and request you delete my account. I would also request (although of course I acknowledge I am in no position to demand this) that you delete my name from any part of Conservapedia to which I have contributed with the sole exception of this comment. Re-write The Bible any way you wish. Count me out. While you do it you may wish to think hard about Revelation 22:18-21

Amen. Good-bye, Conservapedia.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Take solace in your [[last wordism]] of which you are so quick to accuse others. I won't be back to read it. [[User:JackThomson|JThomson]] 16:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're funny Jack. I really chuckled at this one. You win the "[[Parthian Shot]] of the Month"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::I respect Jack for taking a stand for the Bible and I agree with most of what he said. Although, Mr. Schlafly, I love and respect you, and am subservient to you on this website, I must say he was correct defending the inerrancy of the scripture. It may be naive, but I still believe the Bible, Authorized Version 1611. Christ said not one jot or tittle would go out of the law, so I assume that any addition to it would be valid and Spirit-inspired. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 19:28, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Steve, I don't think Jack was really taking a stand for the Bible and Christianity. But I hope you're right.

::: To me, the [[Gospel of John]] was vandalized by the [[liberal]] adulteress story, which is used today to oppose the [[death penalty]], make light of promiscuity, downplay [[Hell]], and undermine Christian teaching about asking for and receiving forgiveness. The story pretends to be an eyewitness account, but was added long after all the eyewitnesses had died. No big deal: I'd do the Lord's work by "reverting" the vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: The Bible is considered to be inerrant in its original form. We believe we have a good indication of what was preached and told, but understand that there may be small differences such as that section in John and the end of Mark. In comparison to any other work of antiquity, the cohesion of the Bible and lack of differences among different copies is unparalleled.

:On a different note though, I wouldn't call the story a liberal falsehood, as concepts of liberal and conservative as understood today did not have a direction correlation to that time. One of the issues that is left out, is the fact that only the woman was brought before Jesus. Where was the man since she was caught 'in the very act of adultery'. The Pharisees, to put it in terms that do have meaning to us today, were being deceitful. Their reason to confront Jesus was to discredit Him in a no win situation, not because they had a deep desire to see that justice was done. Many of the concepts in the story can be found in other areas of Scipture. For instance Jesus is known for performing miracles in different ways; the idea of him writing on the ground is only a difficulty if we go out of our way to read one into it -- in my opinion. Other concepts of 'Judge not lest you be judged' and 'taking the log out of your own eye before helping your neighbor take the speck out of their eye' from other areas of Scripture also show a hesitancy to judge. Reproof of others should be done in a spirit of humility and with a goal to help the person. I think that is the greatest interpretation that can be taken from this story and from other areas of the Bible that echo similar themes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:25, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Learn together is correct that the Bible is considered to be inerrant ''in its original form'', not in the various translations that we have today (and they can't be, as some differ, even if only in trivial details). So JThomson, genuine though I believe he was, was wrong to imply that God has ensured that the Bible we have today is ''exactly'' as God intended it to be. He is also being close-minded in not hanging around to see if any of us can offer counter-arguments to his post. And his reference to Revelation 22:18-21 is begging the question.
:: Steve, you don't express yourself clearly enough, so I might be misunderstanding you, but the original autographs, not the 1611 translation of them, were the inspired, infallible, Word of God.
:: Andy, your comment that it was added long after all eyewitnesses had died ignores the possibility that the story had been around since the time of Jesus, even though not part of the book of John. That in itself is not reason to claim that it's an invention.
:: Learn together, your comments are very good. I would add regarding Jesus writing on the ground that there ''is'' a precedent: Jesus is God, and God wrote with his own "finger" on the tablets of stone that Moses prepared. In both cases we have God/Jesus writing with His ''finger'' on "earth material" (stone/dirt).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I don't think there is evidence that the adulteress story is as old as Jesus's ministry. The story conflicts with fundamental teachings of Christianity, such as the need to ''ask'' for forgiveness and the complete forgiveness that is then granted. Rather, the story implicitly conveys the wrong message that unforgiven sin is a function of age, and that older people are wiser in recognizing that. The unanimous acceptance of Jesus's answer is also absurd: Jesus had enemies, many of them, who would never accept His teaching.

::: The story is plainly anti-Christian vandalism and, as in a wiki, should be "reverted".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Jesus, when on the cross, forgave the soldiers without them asking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:11, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Good point, but due to extraordinary circumstances. The soldiers did not know any better, for example, while the adulteress surely did. Moreover, you're responding to only a small part of the conflict with Christian doctrine in the story.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Hooey. That God gives unconditional love and forgiveness--even to the undeserving--and that we should follow His example, is a consistent theme throughout the New Testament. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I realised that I was only responding to one point. I thought that I'd tackle one point at a time. I think you're surmising more than you are entitled to, as you don't know how much the woman knew compared to how much the soldiers knew. And Jesus may have had a special reason in this case: Because the accusers were using her to try and trap Jesus, Jesus decided to show her extra mercy. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Philip, I don't find your argument persuasive, and don't know why you're pursuing a tangential issue here. Think Jesus was feeling pressure to forgive the woman as a way out of the trap? I don't buy it. Jesus did mercifully forgive those who sought forgiveness. All bets are off for those who do not.

::::::: The bigger conflict with Christianity in the story is how it portrays the older people as more sinful -- and more wise -- that the younger ones. That's absurd, and implicitly denies the effectiveness of forgiveness, which is central to Christianity. The adulteress story is an anti-Christian act of vandalism to the Bible, one that should be "reverted" so that others are not misled by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::When can we look forward to the new, Liberalism-free Andrew Schlafly Edition of the Bible? Hopefully, it'll contain all those Special Conservative Scriptures that never made it into the Liberal-Contaminated editions, like "Blessed are the rich in money, for they are better than the Poor", "Thou shalt not bear false witness, unless it's against a Liberal", and "Thou shalt not admit adultery."
::::::::All sarcasm aside, what a lot of you are worshipping [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm might not be Jesus]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Interesting how the first quote on your link to support a [[liberal]] interpretation of [[Jesus]] is ... the phony adulteress story. Will you admit that [[liberal]]s' favorite quote from the Gospels is widely recognized not to be an authentic original?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::I think the arguments above - that later addition might not be an adequate proxy for falsity - are well made. The Bible was compiled from various authors at various times. Some built upon the works of others, and added their own experiences. That a late edition must needs be a falsity doesn't follow. Further, if you're admitting that the Bible isn't all literal - that it's open to interpretation on some issues - there's a much harder issue you must face. How do you know which parts are open to interpretation, and which aren't? How can you be certain of any of your literal interpretations, anymore? This is a slipper slope, upon which I'm surprised to see you embark.-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 00:18, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: The issue of the authenticity of a passage with respect to the [[Bible]] is unrelated and irrelevant to the truth of the [[Bible]] itself. There is no slippery slope.

::::::::::: It's not just that the adulteress passage was added later that makes it a hoax. It's also that the passage fundamentally contradicts both Christian principles (including the nature of forgiveness of sin and its complete effectiveness for those who seek it) and common sense (including the fact that [[Jesus]] would never have enjoyed unanimous support). The passage today is [[liberals]]'s favorite part of the [[Gospels]], and the passage is a hoax.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There is absolutely a slippery slope and you have shocked and disappointed me by taking the most liberal position I've ever known you to have. I'm taking time away from my essay to warn you of what my Pastor told me. Once you make yourself judge of what in the Bible can be authentic and what can not be authentic, nothing is off limits. No one can no for sure that there is not some earlier manuscript ''with'' the account of the adulteress in it. When you let you begin to make yourself guardian of the scriptures, protecting it and "making reversions as in a wiki," you are taking authority from God. Don't you trust Him to keep His own Word infallible? --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 10:36, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::I do not believe that Aschlafly is making an error here. The Bible has many insertions and contradictions that have been added over the centuries. Many of them, as Aschlafly notes, were probably added by liberals. I propose that Conservapedia start a project to revert these insertions, and make a truly conservative Bible available online.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:02, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Before this gets out of hand with [[liberal]] comments like Mathewson's, there are very, very few passages in the Bible that are of questionable authenticity. Look through the NIV (or other translation) and you'll have a hard time finding anything of questionable origin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:08, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:How questionable is the origin of Matthew 19:21 (sell all that you have and give to the poor), or the bit in Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25, AND Matthew 19:24--obviously the work of not just Liberal saboteurs, but TIME-TRAVELLING COMMUNISTS!!!@!!1one!
:Of course, this entire foofaraw is ignoring the fact that the Bible was a compilation in about 300AD of various texts that had been floating around before then. And if we're throwing things out, how about EVERYTHING "Saint" Paul wrote? Not only was he not Jesus, he never even MET the guy.
:And as I pointed out earlier, there's a few Biblical scholars and historians who make a case for a chunk of the Old Testament being bogus.
:Not that I expect you to address any of these points--as far as I can tell, you're just upset because anyone's suggested that Jesus might think forgiveness is more important than the death penalty. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:08, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Mosaic law ==

Steve, your cite to the Mosaic law is terrific. But [[liberal]] [[Christians]] will cite the adulteress story as changing Mosaic law. Indeed, the increasing reliance on this adulteress story in churches is leading to an increased opposition to the [[death penalty]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:You're right Mr. Schlafly, the way [[liberal Christians]] are twisting the adulteress story for political gain drives me nuts. Phillip, you're right: I don't express myself clearly enough. This is a tough topic. I'm not really sure what to think about it, and perhaps my vagueness stopped me from saying something ludicrous. I will consult my Pastor before further comments. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 13:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::I second Steve's comments. I think that Conservapedia should embark on a project to purge the Bible of the insertions that liberals have added over the centuries. Conservapedia could create a truly conservative online edition of the Bible--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT).

:::Dude, there already is a truly conservative edition of the Bible: The King James! See my recent additions to [[Liberal Christianity]]. Although truly conservative Christians are rare, even rarer than anyone else on the net, this site is the one of the closest I've found. That's why it bugged me when Aschlafly said the NIV was a conservative Bible. N means "new!" NIV, and all the other "new" versions, are based on a completely different Greek translation of the Bible than KJV. That's why the doctrine they get from it is so different. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)