Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-07-08T18:43:36Z

HarabecW:

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

User talk:HarabecW

2011-07-05T22:24:52Z

HarabecW: /* Undo revision 886218 by AmericanbyHeart */

== [[Wicca]] ==

Please wait for an answer to your request before deleting material. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 11:08, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

HarabecW, all I see you doing now is slipping in fact tags or removing information; I saw very little improving done to the Wicca article, which you said you would do. We are here to build up an encyclopedia, not take it down. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:40, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Tagging is improving the site. It lets people know where things need to be removed, added, or changed. And I cant seem to make any changes without getting yelled at by someone that I'm stepping on their turf. I have also doubled the size of the Wicca article and improved it's accuracy greatly. I am contributing plenty. -HarabecW

== Gallery of American Heroes ==

Done, thanks, I agree with you in this subject. It was posted by a User that later was blocked. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:16, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

Looking at your good contributions I think you must have just made a mistake. Sorry for calling that vandalism and not giving you a chance to fix it. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:56, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

It doesnt need to be fixed, what I did is something the community is obviously OK with as no one responded to me for over a week when I posted massive issues with the original article. The article needs to be deleted --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 13:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:Well, I agree that some of that stuff is questionable but just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean it's Ok. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:00, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
::So what are we supposed to do? Just let it sit there until someone deigns to discuss it? --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:03, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Apparently yes. It's not your website. The admins get to decide what they want in it. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:05, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
::::That isnt what a website like this is deigned for. It is supposed to be editable by everyone and everyone can contribute. If this is a website meant for a select group, then why allow us plebs to do any editing at all? If they want to outsource the sucker work like fixing grammar, they need to say so. The article is atrociously bad and needs to be removed. I gave ample time for people to read and respond. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:09, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::I don't know. TK say you can do whatever you want with a wikipedia software website. These guys are doing what they want with this one. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:12, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Harabec, I think you simply deleted a substantial amount of material in an entry. Is that what you call "editing"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:19, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, I do, especially if that information is demonstrably incorrect. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 15:07, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

== [[Labor union]] ==

Please don't censor material without prior discussion on the talk page. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 14:51, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
:What's to discuss? There was loaded language on the page and it was removed in favor of more neutral and less biased language --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:51, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

== Undo revision 886218 by AmericanbyHeart ==

Why? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:48, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
:No sources or information to back up the statement. If we're running a rag, then so be it, but the purpose of this website isn't to slander. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:24, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

User talk:HarabecW

2011-07-05T22:24:19Z

HarabecW: /* Undo revision 886218 by AmericanbyHeart */

== [[Wicca]] ==

Please wait for an answer to your request before deleting material. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 11:08, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

HarabecW, all I see you doing now is slipping in fact tags or removing information; I saw very little improving done to the Wicca article, which you said you would do. We are here to build up an encyclopedia, not take it down. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:40, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Tagging is improving the site. It lets people know where things need to be removed, added, or changed. And I cant seem to make any changes without getting yelled at by someone that I'm stepping on their turf. I have also doubled the size of the Wicca article and improved it's accuracy greatly. I am contributing plenty. -HarabecW

== Gallery of American Heroes ==

Done, thanks, I agree with you in this subject. It was posted by a User that later was blocked. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:16, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

Looking at your good contributions I think you must have just made a mistake. Sorry for calling that vandalism and not giving you a chance to fix it. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:56, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

It doesnt need to be fixed, what I did is something the community is obviously OK with as no one responded to me for over a week when I posted massive issues with the original article. The article needs to be deleted --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 13:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:Well, I agree that some of that stuff is questionable but just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean it's Ok. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:00, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
::So what are we supposed to do? Just let it sit there until someone deigns to discuss it? --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:03, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Apparently yes. It's not your website. The admins get to decide what they want in it. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:05, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
::::That isnt what a website like this is deigned for. It is supposed to be editable by everyone and everyone can contribute. If this is a website meant for a select group, then why allow us plebs to do any editing at all? If they want to outsource the sucker work like fixing grammar, they need to say so. The article is atrociously bad and needs to be removed. I gave ample time for people to read and respond. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:09, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::I don't know. TK say you can do whatever you want with a wikipedia software website. These guys are doing what they want with this one. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:12, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Harabec, I think you simply deleted a substantial amount of material in an entry. Is that what you call "editing"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:19, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, I do, especially if that information is demonstrably incorrect. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 15:07, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

== [[Labor union]] ==

Please don't censor material without prior discussion on the talk page. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 14:51, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
:What's to discuss? There was loaded language on the page and it was removed in favor of more neutral and less biased language --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:51, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

== Undo revision 886218 by AmericanbyHeart ==

Why? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:48, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
:No sources or information to back up the statement --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:24, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

Islam

2011-07-05T20:15:33Z

HarabecW: Undo revision 886218 by AmericanbyHeart (talk)

[[File:Madina Haram at evening .jpg|center|800px|thumb|Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in [[Medina]], [[Saudi Arabia]], the site of [[Muhammad|Muhammad's]] tomb.]]

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]] (or often [[Mohammed]] and other variants), a seventh century [[Arab]] merchant, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action. Muhammad was also born to the descendents of Abraham. Muhammed claimed to have received revelations from archangel Gabriel, which he wrote down in the [[Qur'an]] ([[Koran]]) - thus forming the core teachings of Islam. The word "Islam" means "submission" (to [[Allah]]) in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. Islam teaches that one must gain salvation through submission to the one true God. Islam is known as one of the world's most violent religions; there have been over 16,000 terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam since 2001.<ref>http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/</ref>. [[Liberals]] however, frequently ignore the violence of Islam (refering to critics as "racists" and "Islamophobes") while they focus on baselessly attacking Christianity, a religion with a long history of charity and self sacrifice<ref>http://www.ccusa.org/</ref><ref>http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/charity.html</ref>.

A follower of Islam is called a "[[Muslim]]" or "Moslem", a term which means "one who submits (to Allah)". The older terms "Mohammedan" and "Muhammedan" ("follower of Muhammad"), have fallen out of use.<ref> Additional archaic terms for Muslims include "Hagarene", and "Saracen". Saracen as a term for Muslims was limited to the Crusade era, although it makes frequent re-appearances in pre-modern polemics. Hagarene was a more common term in pre-modern works, as it denotes the biblical connection of Hagar the mother of Ishmael who is reported as the patriarch of Islam. Additional names for Muslims in pre-modern and Medieval works are generally derived from misspellings.</ref>

==Theology==
There are no clergy, but there are religious teachers, or [[Imam]]s, who have their followings. All Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of Muhammad, whom they believe to be Allah's ('''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) last and greatest [[prophet]]. The teachings of Muhammad are transmitted through the [[Qur'an]], the Hadith, and the Sunnah. The Sunnah is a general term for "the life and doings of the Prophet", which all Muslims are called on to replicate. The faith teaches that the Archangel [[Gabriel]] appeared to Muhammad in a cave reciting verbatim a revelation from Allah. The first word that Gabriel says to Muhammad is "Iqra" or "Recite/Proclaim",which is found in the 96th Sura of the Qur'an.

Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an (or Koran) to Muhammad. The key miracle of Islam comes from the historical condition of the illiterate and uneducated Muhammad, as the Qur'an is composed in an erudite and complex form of Arabic prose and poetry<ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The Qur'an was not written down in a systemised fashion until a decade after Muhammad died, preferable transmission being through oral recenscion.The Qur'an is considered to be the pure and holy word of God, uncreated and eternal. In Islamic theology the term uncreated is very important, as it implies that there is no author for the Qur'an, only the delivering ot the word to Muhammad who delivered it to the Sahab and the Salaf (The Companions and the Pure), who delivered it to the scribe delegated to record it in the reign of the Caliph Uthman bin Affan.

==Origins==
Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam originated in the Middle East. Islam claims to trace its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets that followed as recorded in the lost books of the Tawrat and Injil.

Based upon this belief, the [[Bible]], both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s, is believed to have become corrupted through the [[Bible translations|translations and misinterpretations]] accumulated over several millenia. The criticism of the [[Torah]] centers around the reconstruction of the existing Biblical text required after the "[[Babylon]]ian captivity". The criticism of the New Testament centers in the many disputed gnostic texts which contradict the orthodox biblical canon. Interestingly, Islamic jurisprudence accepts that the Injil was complete and whole up until the revelation of Muhammad. Therefore there is some inconsistency in the claims made against the New Testament. For more information, see [[The Bible versus the Qur'an]].
[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], one of the holy cities of Islam.]]

==Today==
Islam is the worlds second largest religion, with over 1.6 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to conversions, high birth rates, and redefinitions of the term 'Muslim'. Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but cannot keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

[[Indonesia]] has the largest Muslim population in the world.

==Historical Background==

According to Islamic belief, in approximately 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], located in the Hijaz (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] (or Jibreel) to "recite" the message of Allah (The Muslim god). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgment day.

The message to Muhammad was to be God's last and fullest revelation, a direct copy of the Umm Al Khitab, the mother of all books located in heaven next to God; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or the city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Muhammad's forces, composed of the sahaba (companions) from Mecca ,and the Ansar (allied tribes from Yathrib) started attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632.
[[File:Islam750.jpg|thumb|590px]]

Tribal elders in a traditional council called the "Shura" elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through conquest and negotiation into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], South-east and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

The Muslim armies conquered and superseded the ancient Sassanid and Byzantine empires which had ruled before. Within a generation of Muhammad's death Muslim armies occupied an empire stretching from the Nile river to the far off Iranian province of khorasan. Reasons for the rapid conquest are varied and obscure. The Arab armies were more akin to tribal war bands raiding and settling where and when they could. The Byzantine and Sassanid empires had been at war for centuries. The constant simmering conflict between Constantinople and Persia reached a climax in the early 7th century. The Sassanids conquered briefly Egypt and the Levant threatening the central Byzantine heartland of Anatolia. Under the military reforms of the emperor Heraclius, the Byzantine army consolidated and counter attacked, recapturing all that they had lost and capturing the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon in 628.

This brief end of the Roman-Persian wars disrupted the frontier areas which had predicated their economies on raiding and mercenary activities. Two major areas in Arabia were directly affected. The Lackmid tribe and the Gassanid tribe both acted as mercenaries for the Persians and Romans. The official religion of both tribes analogically mirrored that of their overseers. Monophysite Christianity was common, particularly of the Jacobite sect. The death of Muhammad and the subsequent Ridda wars occupied these warrior tribes until the reign of Caliph Umar. Additionally, there was great religious unrest in the levant and Egypt. These areas resented the ruinous taxes and the harsh orthodoxy imposed by the emperor in Constantinople.

The same climate was present in the Sassanid realm with the rise of the dualism of the Manicheans. Under the Caliph Umar ,the Arab tribes which had concluded the infighting following the death of Muhammad were allowed to raid into the Byzantine and Sassanid fronteirs. The weakened state of both regimes from both military and economic exhaustion and religious unrest made them fertile picking grounds for the tribal warbands. The Arabs were chiefly successful in holding these areas in that they upheld a lightweight regime of low taxes based in the Islamic laws and distant government. Rather than employing an army of bureaucrats and nobility, the early Arab empire was more favorable towards maintaining the existing government structures under the leadership of Arab tribes. In this atmosphere it is hardly surprising to note the reports from both Muslim and Christian sources of peaceful capitulation and invitation of the invading forces.

==Divisions Within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name possibly derived from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Religious Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Qur'an as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written Qur'an that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Qur'an is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Qur'an as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Qur'an and able to offer commentaries on Qur'anic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Qur'an or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Qur'an, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

==Other Aspects of Islam==
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Muslims who believe as bin Laden does is growing, and others go further to suggest that all "fundamentalist" Muslims are enemies of the West. But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow murderers such as bin Laden or other terrorists. These observers suggest that the fundamentalists disagree with bin Laden as much as do Westerners, yet remain silent out of fear or disrespect for non-believing "infidels". Many westerners are still haunted by the images of cheering crowds dancing in the streets when the 9/11 attacks were announced and were disappointed at the lack of prominent condemnation of the attack from Islamic circles worldwide.

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Qur'an and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Qur'an, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Qur'an and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
[[File:Muslim girls at Istiqlal Mosque Jakarta Indonesia.jpg|left|thumb|240px|Muslim girls at Istiqlal [[Mosque]], Jakarta.]]
In pre-Islamic times women's rights were defined by tribal laws which differed amongst the tribes. Some women had absolute equity and the ability to hold power, while some women were treated worse than chattel; bride prices, unlimited polygamy, and female infanticide were a common theme. Islamic law standardised the situation on the Arabian peninsula, at a level slightly above the lowest,granting women limited rights an distinct legal individuals, a restricted right to divorce, and required her not to directly object to a marriage contract in order for it to have validity. It also limited polygamy to a maximum of four wives at any one time, though the use of "temporary" marriage in effect rendered this restriction meaningless. That was over a thousand years ago and there has been little progress since. The reality of traditional Sharia law as applied in the modern era has shocked the modern conscience. <ref>Linda Rae Bennett, ''Women, Islam and Modernity'' (2005)</ref>.

Women are treated as inferiors to men in almost every regard. For example, women are required to cover the head and body in public, by wearing the hijab. Hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and western street clothes may be acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque [[Burqa]] was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. The treatment of women may depend upon rural or urban settings, educational level, society norms, tradition, or other factors. As of 2008, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are the most significant Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of restrictive garb, though cultural pressure in most Islamic countries lives women little choice but to submit to the dictat of hijab. [[Honor killing]] is winked at.

Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education.

Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of the criminal law of the country, and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, Turkey has a majority Muslim population yet still grants women rights near-equal to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, though these are the countries were traditional Islam is strongest. They point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, ignoring the efforts of traditionalists in Turkey to end the freedoms women enjoy.

Muslim women's status is controversial. Whilst Muslim men control and oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities, Islamic apologists defend some practices suggest that many of them, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect women from predatory men.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the [[Dome of the Rock]] mosque. According to the Qur'an (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims can have dogs for safety. Muslims are prohibited from drinking alcoholic beverages, gambling, and from collecting interest on financial transactions.

===Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings===
FGM (also known as female circumcision) is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" condition for a woman, and act to carry out. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, though not in Coptic Egypt as some Islamic apologists claim. Female circumcision is not called for nor is it supported by the Qur'an.

Another pagan practice practice continued in Islamic countries is [[honor killing]], in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that "dishonored" the family through supposedly, "promiscuous" behaviour. This "promiscuous" activity often includes women from Islamic societies living in the West aspiring to a more open lifestyle. The "honor killing" is more ancient, and pagan in origin, but tolerated and practised more or less openly in some Muslim societies. Honor killings are not supported by the Qur'an and are directly commanded against with the Surah "Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."

==Islam and Christianity==
see [[Dhimma]]

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the Resurrection, they consider Him and His mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshipping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that non-believers will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified (same as similar statements in the Bible and the Torah):

{{cquote|Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."
}}
::(Qur'an 5:73-75)

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in Arabic) as a founding prophet.

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]], amongst others]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Most Islamic scholars regard Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established during the early stages of the Islamic Empire, though a few scholars also believe contemporary legal cases can and should shape the law, though such thinkers may be subject to ridicule and even threats from Islamists.

Sharia law proscribes often brutal punishments for acts, that, in the western world, are relatively minor. For example, under sharia law, converting from Islam is punishable by death,<ref>[http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html]</ref> whilst women found guilty of adultery is punishable by stoning to death, which often includes many rape victims, as Sharia courts often regard a rape victim as guilty of adultery unless she can provide four witnesses to the act of rape.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6148590.stm</ref> In cases involving the death penalty of corporal punishment, methods of carrying out the punishment are often barbaric, and include public beheading, chopping off of the hand, and flogging.<ref>http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/punishment-in-saudi-arabia/</ref> Many Islamist groups have been attempting to have Shariah courts set up in European countries, initially to rule over civil cases between Muslims in Europe.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html</ref>

==Terminology==
Additional archaic terms for Muslims include , but are not limited to, "Hagarene" and "Saracen". The term Hagarene was more common in post-crusade Europe as it made specific reference to the biblical mother of Ishmael. Ishmael in the Muslim faith plays an analogous theological role to Isaac. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, (1992)</ref>

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref>

<ref>''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back] </ref>

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Ramadan]]
*[[In the midst of a Maelstrom: the Holy Spirit and silence: an essay]] encounter of Israeli Messianic Jew and Egyptian Muslim in Alexandria

==Further reading==
* Armour, Rollin. ''Islam, Christianity, and the West: A Troubled History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Christianity-West-Troubled-History/dp/1570754071/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-32 excerpt and text search]
* Armstrong, Karen. ''Islam: A Short History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Berkey, Jonathan P. ''The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Islam-Religion-Society-600-1800/dp/0521588138/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Campo, Juan Eduardo. ''Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2009), basic introduction
* Esposito, John J. ''The Oxford History of Islam'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Glasse, Cyril. ''The New Encyclopedia of Islam'' ( 2nd ed. 2008)
* Lewis, Bernard. ''Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East'' (2001), by leading conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-People-Events-Middle/dp/0812695186/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, Richard C. et al. ''Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World'' (2003), more advanced
* Newby, Gordon. ''A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Encyclopedia-Islam-Gordon-Newby/dp/1851682953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342942&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Robinson, Chase F. ed. ''The New Cambridge History of Islam'' (Volume 1) (2009), summarizes advanced scholarship
* Ruthven, Malise, and Azim Nanji. ''Historical Atlas of Islam'' (2004)
* Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. (1992)
* Sonn, Tamara and Mary Williamsburg. ''A Brief History of Islam'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Blackwell-Histories-Religion/dp/1405109009/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Wheatcroft, Andrew. ''Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Infidels-History-Conflict-Between-Christendom/dp/0812972392/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Qur'an online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]
* Congressional Research Service, "Islam: A Primer", Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain and the source of part of this article [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]
*[http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/01/islamists-torch-pope-in-effigy-again.html Islamists Torch Pope in Effigy, Again]
*[http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/december/849_kind-strangers.html Muslims Saving Jews During World War II.] By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh.
*[http://differencesbetween.com/islam-and-muslim/ Difference Between Islam and Muslim]

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

[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Transhumanism

2011-07-03T05:01:02Z

HarabecW: /* The Singularity */

Transhumanism is, at it's core, is a philosophical idea that advances the idea of positively encouraging human development using advanced and emerging technologies. This can encompass life extension or clinical immortality, using technology to augment the human body to solve problems of physical or mental disability and to increase the capabilities of the human body, increasing the efficiency and comfort of human life, decreasing human impact on the environment, or achieving some form of enlightenment or connection with the technological world.

==History of Transhumanism==

==Transhumanist Thought==
Within Transhumanism, there are several lines of thought that focus on specific aspects of humanity;

*Abolitionism, an ideology based upon a perceived obligation to use technology to eliminate involuntary human suffering.
*Democratic Transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and Transhumanism.
*Extropianism, an early school of transhumanist thought characterized by a set of principles advocating a guided approach to human evolution. It should be noted that this is not the same as eugenics, Extropianism advocates assisting those with disabilities with advanced technology rather than the removal of individuals from the gene pool
*Transhumanistic Socialism, a combination of Transhuman ideas with Socialist thought, it involves using advanced and emerging technology to help create and sustain a Socialist society.
*Immortalism, a ideology based upon the belief that technological immortality is possible and desirable with the use of advanced medical technology.
*Libertarian Transhumanism, a political ideology combining Libertarianism and Transhumanism.
*Singularitarianism, an ideology based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.
*Technoecology, an ecological ideology based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth's environment, and that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should therefore be a priority.

While other forms of Transhumanism do exist, these represent many of the main currents in modern Transhumanist thought.

==The Singularity==
The Singularity is a point in human development where our technological capability will be so rapid that it becomes impossible to predict what will occur next. In the words of Ray Kurzweil, "The Singularity is a future period [in] which technological change will be so rapid and it's impact so profound that every aspect of human life will be irreversibly transformed."

Almost all forms of Transhumanist thought encompass the idea of a technological singularity. A technological singularity works off of the fact that our current capability to process and access information, both technologically and as human beings, is increasing at an exponential rate. At some point in the future, we will reach a point of critical mass where the rate of intelligence growth, both biological and technological, becomes so fast that it becomes impossible to predict anything beyond that point. After that point, it is believed that many of the barriers we face when dealing with advanced technologies will be gone.

Transhumanists in general disagree as to what the singularity will look like or when it will occur, but it is a key component to almost all Transhuman thought.

==Transhumanist Ethics==
Transhumanist thinkers generally embrace the ideas of responsible use of technology, bioethics, social progressiveness, and open exchange of information. The idea of eugenics or forcible inclusion into a Transhuman society is universally shunned by Transhumanists because Transhumanism attempts to advance mankind and a system of eugenics or forced inclusion is not a positive or stabilizing force within humanity.

A strong idea within Transhumanism is freedom of information because it only through free access and exchange of information that many advanced and emerging technologies will have their greatest impact

==Posthuman==
The term "posthuman" refers to the human being after the singularity or in an extremely technologically advanced society. This has been described as the human body augmented by cybernetic and nanotechnology, the human body having evolved to a higher stage of evolution or existence, human beings in a collective consciousness, or even the human mind translated to digital data and downloaded into a digital system where humans have no bodies at all and exist purely in a digital format.

This aspect of Transhumanism is highly speculative and many Transhumanists disagree as to what exactly "posthuman" will look like, but all agree that it is a goal of Transhumanism.

==Practice==

==Arguments Against Transhumanism==

User talk:HarabecW

2011-07-03T02:51:22Z

HarabecW: /* Labor union */

Artificial intelligence

2011-07-02T18:26:03Z

HarabecW: Removed weasel words and non-factual information

[[Image:Hgcfjy.jpg|right|thumb|ASIMO is a humanoid robot created by [[Honda]]. Standing at 130 centimeters and weighing 54 kilograms, the robot resembles a small astronaut wearing a backpack and can walk on two feet in a manner resembling human locomotion at up to 6 km/h. ASIMO was created at Honda's Research & Development Wako Fundamental Technical Research Center in [[Japan]].]]

'''Artificial intelligence''' (or '''AI''') is a computer-based simulation of the human thought process. It is a common feature in [[science-fiction]], but as yet no true AI (IE, one capable of passing the [[Turing Test]]) has been created, and only very limited progress has been made on such simple subcomponents as facial recognition or beating world champion chess players at [[chess]].

Many philosophers, including the [[John Searle]], have advanced the view that artificial intelligence is an impossible goal. The main argument is that it would be impossible for a machine, a creation of man, to ever achieve actual understanding and comprehension of either language or the world around it, as the machine is simply a set of rules which process symbolic information. This argument is summarized by Searle's [[thought experiment]], the [[Chinese Room]]. <ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/chineser.htm</ref> Despite being a [[humanist]], Searle's arguments reflect the popular religious thought that creation can never be as great as the Creator. Thus, his conclusions are self-evident truth to any theist, as a machine is simply a metal object.

Artificial intelligence was most popular between the 60's and the 80's, when computers were still new and misunderstood. [[Alan Turing]] was responsible for much of the fever of attempting to create intelligent computers, with his publication of the paper proposing the [[Turing Test]].

The field is now divided into several sub-branches, which attempt to recreate some of the features and abilities of the human mind, without assuming that the features such as real intelligence, understanding or emotions are in any way possible for a computer.

==See also==
* [[Deep Blue]]
* [[Robot]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Cybernetics

2011-07-02T18:24:04Z

HarabecW: Created page with "Cybernetics is the science of integrating biological and mechanical systems involving the application of statistical mechanics to communication engineering. The most familiar as..."

Cybernetics is the science of integrating biological and mechanical systems involving the application of statistical mechanics to communication engineering.

The most familiar aspect of cybernetics is the enhancement of the human body with artificial limbs, muscles, or organs.

English Eugenics Society

2011-07-02T18:18:37Z

HarabecW:

The '''English Eugenics Society''' was founded to apply the idea of [[evolution]] to the human race. The term "[[eugenics]]" was coined by the English scientist [[Francis Galton]] in 1883, and he advocated that future generations of humans could be improved through encouraging the "best" in society to have more children. [[Charles Darwin]]'s son, Leonard, heartily promoted Galton's proposals in the 1920s and became director of the English Eugenics Society.<ref>http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/14.html</ref>

The English Eugenics Society was a precursor to the modern promotion of [[abortion]], and founded the International [[Planned Parenthood]] Federation.{{fact}}

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:evolution]]
[[category:abortion]]

Media Matters for America

2011-07-02T18:17:43Z

HarabecW: Modified weasel words

'''Media Matters for America''' is a news examination and blogging organization created by the [[George Soros]]-funded [[Center for American Progress]], with a goal to highlight what it considers [[conservative]] misinformation in mass media organizations. Primarily, they target prominent conservative public officials, public television personalities, [[Fox News]], and [[conservative talk radio]]. Some claim they were instrumental in lobbying for the firing of [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.aim.org/special_report/5390_0_8_0_C/ How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus], Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007.</ref> whom they considered a moderate for endorsing [[John Kerry]] for [[United States presidential election, 2004|president in 2004]].<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/17/video-tammy-bruce-exposes-far-left-outlets-hit-list-on-everyone-to-their-right/ Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right,] ''FOX News'', April 17, 2007.</ref> Imus was targeted by the liberal left for criticizing Senator [[Charles Schumer]] and most notably, the constant rebuke of former First Lady and at the time Senator [[Hillary Clinton]].

==Founding==
Since 2004, Media Matters has monitored conservative media and attacked high-profile conservatives with provocative language. In addition, it is often accused of using out-of-context [[quote mining]]. It is headed by [[David Brock]], a former conservative who claims he made up stories about such people as [[Anita Hill]], who charged Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] with sexual harassment during Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Brock developed a relationship in the 1990s with then-First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]]'s press aide, [[Neel Lattimore]], and came out of the closet, announcing he was a [[homosexual]] and joining the [[liberal]] cause. Brock later hired Lattimore at Media Matters as director of "special projects."

Brock is a self-proclaimed fabricator of lies who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20711 Media Matters: Defaming Journalists, Getting Sued], by Catherine Moy, ''Human Events'', 05/15/2007.</ref> While writing ''Blinded by the Right'',<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_23_119/ai_94639741/pg_1 Slime-master: inside the `vast right-wing conspiracy' - Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative] - Book Review, Christian Century, Nov 6, 2002 by Gary Dorrien.</ref> Brock was hospitalized in a mental facility where he spent time in a "quiet room" and "had delusions, he thought people were trying to kill him," according to the Drudge Report.<ref>Moy, ''Human Events''.</ref>

Brock outlined his lies and conversion to liberalism in his 2002 book, ''Blinded By The Right.'' He launched Media Matters in 2004 after conferring with [[Hillary Clinton]].

“David Brock has invented a new form of political organization: a tax-exempt group that is subsidized by taxpayers while Brock gets to spew his hate/smears,” said Anthony “Andy” Martin, a journalist suing Brock & Media Matters for defamation.

[[Jamison Foser]] is described on the Media Matters website as having "served as Research Director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ([[DCCC]]) for the 2002 cycle" and is one of several staffers with connections to the faction of Democratic Party linked to the Clintons.

Glenn Thrush of ''Newsday'' has reported very close ties between Brock and the [[Hillary Clinton]] campaign, noting that Hillary "advised Brock" on creating his organization. He added, "For her part, Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget."<ref>[http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5541_0_4_0_C/ AIM Report: Hillary's Hit Man Strikes Again], Accuracy in Media, June 19, 2007.</ref> While speaking at a [[Daily Kos]] event; Hillary Clinton bragged about her role regarding <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/16046/print Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters]" News Busters, October 1st, 2007</ref>

{{cquote|institutions that I helped to start and support like '''Media Matters''' and '''Center for American Progress'''.}}

==Financial information==
For 2005 Media Matters of America showed assets of $6,344,165 and income of $8,489,663.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.mediamatters.org Media Matters For America Website ]
*Media Matters for America [http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=justgive&npoId=100304160 Financial Data] Retrieved from Guidstar, the registered trademark and operating name of Philanthropic Research, Inc.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600848_pf.html Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks], By Thomas B. Edsall, ''Washington Post'', August 7, 2005.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15409&p=1 The Shadow Party: Part II Continued ], By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 7, 2004.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19564 David Brock: Media Liar], By Jacob Laksin, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', September 21, 2005.
*[http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/bparks061507.htm Misleading Matters], by Bob Parks, ''TheRealityCheck.org'', retrieved 15/06/07.

[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

New age movement

2011-07-02T18:16:06Z

HarabecW: Cleaned up the article, removed weasel words

The '''New age movement''' is a large collection of differing beliefs and practices, which all share a desire for [[spiritual]] growth and personal development. Practices often include a mixture of [[astrology]], [[reincarnation]], [[tarot card]] reading, [[crystal ball]] gazing, [[acupuncture]], [[meditation]], [[Eastern mysticism]], and many others. An early influence on the growth of the New Age movement was the founding of the [[Theosophical Society]] by [[Madame Blavatsky]] in 1875, but it gained most popularity in the 1960s, when its followers looked forward to the dawning of the [[Age of Aquarius]].

The New Age Movement does not use strict dogmatic teachings. Jonathan Adolph says that the New Age Movement "has no religious doctrine or teachings of its own."<ref>Jonathan Adolph, "What is New Age?" ''New Age Journal'' (Winter 1988)</ref> A notable characteristic of New Age is it's drawing of cross-religion and cross-culture elements - a typical New Age believer can sometimes comfortably mix Christian crosses and/or angels with ancient Egyptian, Wiccan, Native American, Greek or Celtic symbols making no distinction between them.

The [[Stanford Research Institute]] estimates than as much as 5 or 10% of the population identified themselves as New Agers.<ref>Jonathan Adolph,"What is New Age?" ''New Age Journal'' (Winter 1988)</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Commune

2011-07-02T18:13:39Z

HarabecW:

A '''Commune''' is an intentionally planned community of individuals who often share resources and ideology.
[[category:Socialism]]

Polyamory

2011-07-02T18:11:49Z

HarabecW: Redirected page to Polyamorous

#REDIRECT[[Polyamorous]]

Labor union

2011-07-02T18:01:11Z

HarabecW: Removed weasel words

A '''labor union''' or ''trade union'' is an organization formed for the purpose of collectively representing the interests of a group of workers. In particular this can include collectively bargaining with [[employer]]s in order to agree rates of pay and other conditions of employment.

There are generally two types of unions, private sector unions and public sector unions; some unions have members in both the private and public sectors.

==See also==
* [[American labor unions]]

[[Category:Labor Unions]]

Homicide Bomber

2011-07-02T17:59:35Z

HarabecW:

A '''Homicide Bomber''' is a person who carries explosives on themselves to detonate in a crowded place with the goal of killing as many people as possible. Homicide bombers are [[terrorists]] who kill people by means of explosives secretly carried on their persons, knowing that they will be killed in the attack. The sometimes refers to these people as "[[suicide bomber]]s" although their intent is to murder others, not to commit suicide. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2604119.ece Suicide bombers head to Iraq from Damascus], ''Times Online'', October 7, 2007</ref>

The typical homicide bomber is a young man, although in a few cases women<ref>About 30% of the suicide operations in Sri Lanka have been conducted by women.[http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/usscole/jir001020_1_n.shtml Suicide terrorism: a global threat] - Jane's Intelligence Review </ref>
or teenagers have been goaded into doing this (see [[honor killing]]). Sometimes the homicide bomber drives a truck or other vehicle containing a more deadly load of explosives. Airplanes have been used (see Kamikaze below; also [[9/11]]).

During the Vietnam war, adults reportedly strapped live grenades onto a child's body and sent him into a G.I. bar knowing that lonely American men being fond of children would be unlikely to be suspicious of a child.{{fact}}

Many people mistakenly believe that Islam endorses the use of suicide bombing as a tactic in warfare, however

The '''[[kamikaze]]''' were Japanese pilots who flew their planes into Allied naval vessels in [[World War II]] as a human substitute for [[guided missile]]s. The term ''kamikaze'' is derived from the [[Japanese]] name for the hurricanes that drove back the Mongol invaders; meaning "divine wind" or "wind of the [[god]]s".

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

[[Category: Terrorism]]

Hagakure

2011-07-02T17:59:22Z

HarabecW:

The Hagakure (Japanese for Hidden by the Leaves or hidden leaves) is a collection of saying and wisdom written by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, former retainer to Nabeshima Mitsushige, the third ruler of what is now the Saga prefecture in Japan.

The Hagakure is meant to be a primer for young Samurai. The book records Tsunetomo's views on bushido, the warrior code of the Samurai. Hagakure is sometimes said to assert that bushido is really the "Way of Dying" or living as though one was already dead, and that a samurai retainer must be willing to die at any moment in order to be true to his lord. His saying "I have found the way of the warrior is death" was a summation of the willingness to sacrifice that bushido codified.

==reference==
Full text of the Hagakure
http://exhibita.com/Misc/hagakure/

Hagakure

2011-07-02T17:58:05Z

HarabecW: Created page with "The Hagakure (Japanese for Hidden by the Leaves or hidden leaves) is a collection of saying and wisdom written by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, former retainer to Nabeshima Mitsushige, the..."

Amygdalin

2011-06-30T23:47:52Z

HarabecW:

Amygdalin, also known in the health world as "Vitamin B17", has been popularized as a health suppliment and a cure for cancer by some unscrupulous individuals.

Amygdalin is usually found in the seeds of the almond tree. Once it is consumed, it breaks down in the body and produced hydrogen cyanide which is extremely lethal. Because of the varriation in body chemistry of different individuals, a true toxic dose cannot be established.

The cancer curing properties of Amygdalin have been studied numerous times with almost all studies resulting in no discernable positive effect on cancer.

The use of B17 has been endorsed by several public figures, including Kent Hovind <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewaS-p-TYVI</ref>.

Amygdalin

2011-06-30T23:47:34Z

HarabecW: Created page with "Amygdalin, also known in the health world as "Vitamin B17", has been popularized as a health suppliment and a cure for cancer by some unscrupulous individuals. Amygdalin is usua..."

Amygdalin, also known in the health world as "Vitamin B17", has been popularized as a health suppliment and a cure for cancer by some unscrupulous individuals.

Amygdalin is usually found in the seeds of the almond tree. Once it is consumed, it breaks down in the body and produced hydrogen cyanide which is extremely lethal. Because of the varriation in body chemistry of different individuals, a true toxic dose cannot be established.

The cancer curing properties of Amygdalin have been studied numerous times with almost all studies resulting in no discernable positive effect on cancer.

The use of B17 has been endorsed by several public figures, including Kent Hovind<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewaS-p-TYVI</ref>.

Islam

2011-06-30T04:47:05Z

HarabecW: /* Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings */

[[File:Madina Haram at evening .jpg|center|800px|thumb|Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in [[Medina]], [[Saudi Arabia]], the site of [[Muhammad|Muhammad's]] tomb.]]

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a seventh century [[Arab]] merchant, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action. Muhammad was also born to the descendents of Abraham. Muhammed claimed to have received revelations from archangel Gabriel, which he wrote down in the [[Qur'an]] ([[Koran]]) - thus forming the core teachings of Islam. The word "Islam" means "submission" (to [[Allah]]) in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. Islam teaches that one must gain salvation through submission to the one true God. Islam is known as one of the world's most violent religions, there have been over 16,000 terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam since 2001.<ref>http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/</ref>. [[Liberals]] however, frequently ignore the violence of Islam (refering to critics as "racists" and "Islamophobes") while they focus on baselessly attacking Christianity, a religion with a long history of charity and self sacrifice<ref>http://www.ccusa.org/</ref><ref>http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/charity.html</ref>.

A follower of Islam is called a "[[Muslim]]" or "Moslem", a term which means "one who submits (to Allah)". The older terms "Mohammedan" and "Muhammedan" ("follower of Muhammad"), have fallen out of use.<ref> Additional archaic terms for Muslims include "Hagarene", and "Saracen". Saracen as a term for Muslims was limited to the Crusade era, although it makes frequent re-appearances in pre-modern polemics. Hagarene was a more common term in pre-modern works, as it denotes the biblical connection of Hagar the mother of Ishmael who is reported as the patriarch of Islam. Additional names for Muslims in pre-modern and Medieval works are generally derived from misspellings.</ref>

==Theology==
There are no clergy, but there are religious teachers, or [[Imam]]s, who have their followings. All Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of Muhammad, whom they believe to be Allah's ('''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) last and greatest [[prophet]]. The teachings of Muhammad are transmitted through the [[Qur'an]], the Hadith, and the Sunnah. The Sunnah is a general term for "the life and doings of the Prophet", which all Muslims are called on to replicate. The faith teaches that the Archangel [[Gabriel]] appeared to Muhammad in a cave reciting verbatim a revelation from Allah. The first word that Gabriel says to Muhammad is "Iqra" or "Recite/Poclaim",which is found in the 96th Sura of the Qur'an.

Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an (or Koran) to Muhammad. The key miracle of Islam comes from the historical condition of the illiterate and uneducated Muhammad, as the Qur'an is composed in an erudite and complex form of Arabic prose and poetry<ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The Qur'an was not written down in a systemised fashion until a decade after Muhammad died, preferable transmission being through oral recenscion.The Qur'an is considered to be the pure and holy word of God, uncreated and eternal. In Islamic theology the term uncreated is very important, as it implies that there is no author for the Qur'an, only the delivering ot the word to Muhammad who delivered it to the Sahab and the Salaf (The Companions and the Pure), who delivered it to the scribe delegated to record it in the reign of the Caliph Uthman bin Affan.

==Origins==
Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam originated in the Middle East. Islam claims to trace its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets that followed as recorded in the lost books of the Tawrat and Injil.

Based upon this belief, the [[Bible]], both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s, is believed to have become corrupted through the [[Bible translations|translations and misinterpretations]] accumulated over several millenia. The criticism of the [[Torah]] centers around the reconstruction of the existing Biblical text required after the "[[Babylon]]ian captivity". The criticism of the New Testament centers in the many disputed gnostic texts which contradict the orthodox biblical canon. Interestingly, Islamic jurisprudence accepts that the Injil was complete and whole up until the revelation of Muhammad. Therefore there is some inconsistency in the claims made against the New Testament. For more information, see [[The Bible versus the Qur'an]].
[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], one of the holy cities of Islam.]]

==Today==
Islam is the worlds second largest religion, with over 1.6 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to conversions, high birth rates, and redefinitions of the term 'Muslim'. Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but cannot keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

[[Indonesia]] has the largest Muslim population in the world.

==Historical Background==

According to Islamic belief, in approximately 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], located in the Hijaz (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] (or Jibreel) to "recite" the message of Allah (The Muslim god). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgment day.

The message to Muhammad was to be God's last and fullest revelation, a direct copy of the Umm Al Khitab, the mother of all books located in heaven next to God; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or the city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Muhammad's forces, composed of the sahaba (companions) from Mecca ,and the Ansar (allied tribes from Yathrib) started attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632.
[[File:Islam750.jpg|thumb|590px]]

Tribal elders in a traditional council called the "Shura" elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through conquest and negotiation into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], South-east and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

The Muslim armies conquered and superseded the ancient Sassanid and Byzantine empires which had ruled before. Within a generation of Muhammad's death Muslim armies occupied an empire stretching from the Nile river to the far off Iranian province of khorasan. Reasons for the rapid conquest are varied and obscure. The Arab armies were more akin to tribal war bands raiding and settling where and when they could. The Byzantine and Sassanid empires had been at war for centuries. The constant simmering conflict between Constantinople and Persia reached a climax in the early 7th century. The Sassanids conquered briefly Egypt and the Levant threatening the central Byzantine heartland of Anatolia. Under the military reforms of the emperor Heraclius, the Byzantine army consolidated and counter attacked, recapturing all that they had lost and capturing the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon in 628.

This brief end of the Roman-Persian wars disrupted the frontier areas which had predicated their economies on raiding and mercenary activities. Two major areas in Arabia were directly affected. The Lackmid tribe and the Gassanid tribe both acted as mercenaries for the Persians and Romans. The official religion of both tribes analogically mirrored that of their overseers. Monophysite Christianity was common, particularly of the Jacobite sect. The death of Muhammad and the subsequent Ridda wars occupied these warrior tribes until the reign of Caliph Umar. Additionally, there was great religious unrest in the levant and Egypt. These areas resented the ruinous taxes and the harsh orthodoxy imposed by the emperor in Constantinople.

The same climate was present in the Sassanid realm with the rise of the dualism of the Manicheans. Under the Caliph Umar ,the Arab tribes which had concluded the infighting following the death of Muhammad were allowed to raid into the Byzantine and Sassanid fronteirs. The weakened state of both regimes from both military and economic exhaustion and religious unrest made them fertile picking grounds for the tribal warbands. The Arabs were chiefly successful in holding these areas in that they upheld a lightweight regime of low taxes based in the Islamic laws and distant government. Rather than employing an army of bureaucrats and nobility, the early Arab empire was more favorable towards maintaining the existing government structures under the leadership of Arab tribes. In this atmosphere it is hardly surprising to note the reports from both Muslim and Christian sources of peaceful capitulation and invitation of the invading forces.

==Divisions Within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name possibly derived from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Religious Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Qur'an as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written Qur'an that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Qur'an is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Qur'an as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Qur'an and able to offer commentaries on Qur'anic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Qur'an or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Qur'an, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

==Other Aspects of Islam==
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Muslims who believe as bin Laden does is growing, and others go further to suggest that all "fundamentalist" Muslims are enemies of the West. But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow murderers such as bin Laden or other terrorists. These observers suggest that the fundamentalists disagree with bin Laden as much as do Westerners, yet remain silent out of fear or disrespect for non-believing "infidels". Many westerners are still haunted by the images of cheering crowds dancing in the streets when the 9/11 attacks were announced and were disappointed at the lack of prominent condemnation of the attack from Islamic circles worldwide.

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Qur'an and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Qur'an, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Qur'an and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
[[File:Muslim girls at Istiqlal Mosque Jakarta Indonesia.jpg|left|thumb|240px|Muslim girls at Istiqlal [[Mosque]], Jakarta.]]
In pre-Islamic times women's rights were defined by tribal laws which differed amongst the tribes. Some women had absolute equity and the ability to hold power, while some women were treated worse than chattel; bride prices, unlimited polygamy, and female infanticide were a common theme. Islamic law standardised the situation on the Arabian peninsula, at a level slightly above the lowest,granting women limited rights an distinct legal individuals, a restricted right to divorce, and required her not to directly object to a marriage contract in order for it to have validity. It also limited polygamy to a maximum of four wives at any one time, though the use of "temporary" marriage in effect rendered this restriction meaningless. That was over a thousand years ago and there has been little progress since. The reality of traditional Sharia law as applied in the modern era has shocked the modern conscience. <ref>Linda Rae Bennett, ''Women, Islam and Modernity'' (2005)</ref>.

Women are treated as inferiors to men in almost every regard. For example, women are required to cover the head and body in public, by wearing the hijab. Hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and western street clothes may be acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque [[Burqa]] was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. The treatment of women may depend upon rural or urban settings, educational level, society norms, tradition, or other factors. As of 2008, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are the most significant Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of restrictive garb, though cultural pressure in most Islamic countries lives women little choice but to submit to the dictat of hijab. [[Honor killing]] is winked at.

Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education.

Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of the criminal law of the country, and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, Turkey has a majority Muslim population yet still grants women rights near-equal to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, though these are the countries were traditional Islam is strongest. They point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, ignoring the efforts of traditionalists in Turkey to end the freedoms women enjoy.

Muslim women's status is controversial. Whilst Muslim men control and oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities, Islamic apologists defend some practices suggest that many of them, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect women from predatory men.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the [[Dome of the Rock]] mosque. According to the Qur'an (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims can have dogs for safety. Muslims are prohibited from drinking alcoholic beverages, gambling, and from collecting interest on financial transactions.

===Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings===
FGM (also known as female circumcision) is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" condition for a woman, and act to carry out. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, though not in Coptic Egypt as some Islamic apologists claim. Female circumcision is not called for nor is it supported by the Qur'an.

Another pagan practice practice continued in Islamic countries is [[honor killing]], in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that "dishonored" the family through supposedly, "promiscuous" behaviour. This "promiscuous" activity often includes women from Islamic societies living in the West aspiring to a more open lifestyle. The "honor killing" is more ancient, and pagan in origin, but tolerated and practised more or less openly in some Muslim societies. Honor killings are not supported by the Qur'an and are directly commanded against with the Surah "Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."

==Islam and Christianity==
see [[Dhimma]]

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the Resurrection, they consider Him and His mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshipping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that non-believers will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified (same as similar statements in the Bible and the Torah):

{{cquote|Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."
}}
::(Qur'an 5:73-75)

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in Arabic) as a founding prophet.

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]], amongst others]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Most Islamic scholars regard Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established during the early stages of the Islamic Empire, though a few scholars also believe contemporary legal cases can and should shape the law, though such thinkers may be subject to ridicule and even threats from Islamists.

Sharia law proscribes often brutal punishments for acts, that, in the western world, are relatively minor. For example, under sharia law, converting from Islam is punishable by death,<ref>[http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html]</ref> whilst women found guilty of adultery is punishable by stoning to death, which often includes many rape victims, as Sharia courts often regard a rape victim as guilty of adultery unless she can provide four witnesses to the act of rape.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6148590.stm</ref> In cases involving the death penalty of corporal punishment, methods of carrying out the punishment are often barbaric, and include public beheading, chopping off of the hand, and flogging.<ref>http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/punishment-in-saudi-arabia/</ref> Many Islamist groups have been attempting to have Shariah courts set up in European countries, initially to rule over civil cases between Muslims in Europe.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html</ref>

==Terminology==
Additional archaic terms for Muslims include , but are not limited to, "Hagarene" and "Saracen". The term Hagarene was more common in post-crusade Europe as it made specific reference to the biblical mother of Ishmael. Ishmael in the Muslim faith plays an analogous theological role to Isaac. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, (1992)</ref>

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref>

<ref>''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back] </ref>

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Ramadan]]
*[[In the midst of a Maelstrom: the Holy Spirit and silence: an essay]] encounter of Israeli Messianic Jew and Egyptian Muslim in Alexandria

==Further reading==
* Armour, Rollin. ''Islam, Christianity, and the West: A Troubled History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Christianity-West-Troubled-History/dp/1570754071/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-32 excerpt and text search]
* Armstrong, Karen. ''Islam: A Short History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Berkey, Jonathan P. ''The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Islam-Religion-Society-600-1800/dp/0521588138/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Campo, Juan Eduardo. ''Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2009), basic introduction
* Esposito, John J. ''The Oxford History of Islam'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Glasse, Cyril. ''The New Encyclopedia of Islam'' ( 2nd ed. 2008)
* Lewis, Bernard. ''Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East'' (2001), by leading conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-People-Events-Middle/dp/0812695186/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, Richard C. et al. ''Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World'' (2003), more advanced
* Newby, Gordon. ''A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Encyclopedia-Islam-Gordon-Newby/dp/1851682953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342942&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Robinson, Chase F. ed. ''The New Cambridge History of Islam'' (Volume 1) (2009), summarizes advanced scholarship
* Ruthven, Malise, and Azim Nanji. ''Historical Atlas of Islam'' (2004)
* Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. (1992)
* Sonn, Tamara and Mary Williamsburg. ''A Brief History of Islam'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Blackwell-Histories-Religion/dp/1405109009/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Wheatcroft, Andrew. ''Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Infidels-History-Conflict-Between-Christendom/dp/0812972392/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Qur'an online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]
* Congressional Research Service, "Islam: A Primer", Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain and the source of part of this article [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]
*[http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/01/islamists-torch-pope-in-effigy-again.html Islamists Torch Pope in Effigy, Again]
*[http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/december/849_kind-strangers.html Muslims Saving Jews During World War II.] By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh.
*[http://differencesbetween.com/islam-and-muslim/ Difference Between Islam and Muslim]

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

[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Talk:Islam

2011-06-30T04:41:50Z

HarabecW: /* Islam and Paganism */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

No one seems to have been able to attach any meaningful support to the claims in this section. Jack Chick tracts are not proof. The section has been removed until someone can find halfway trustworthy sources for the claims made in it --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:41, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Jihad is an important part of Islam. These people believe in a religion that supports "holy war", if killing infidels isn't a major part of Islam I fail to see why much else is.[[User:RightPatriot|RightPatriot]]

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== Dilution of Conservative POV ==

Please do not water this article down! By the tacit and explicit agreement of the so-called moderate elements of Islam, their failure to consistently and loudly speak out against violence, it is a violent religion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)

But there are several instances of Muslims and Muslim organizations speaking out against violence and terrorism. A notable example is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm [[User:YNathanielsz|YNathanielsz]] 20:23, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, let's all be very careful not to water down the bias in this article! Neutrality is for liberals! Anyone who isn't willing to be held accountable for the actions of everyone even tangentially associated with them is just as guilty as a terrorist! [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 18:03, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Dialectical Logic of Islamists ==

''Dialectical logic'' [http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/The_Lost.html] is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have devloped their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. '''Islamists''' are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments.[http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/Mayor.html]--[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:32, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:36, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Islam

2011-06-30T04:40:16Z

HarabecW: /* Islam and Paganism */

[[File:Madina Haram at evening .jpg|center|800px|thumb|Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in [[Medina]], [[Saudi Arabia]], the site of [[Muhammad|Muhammad's]] tomb.]]

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a seventh century [[Arab]] merchant, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action. Muhammad was also born to the descendents of Abraham. Muhammed claimed to have received revelations from archangel Gabriel, which he wrote down in the [[Qur'an]] ([[Koran]]) - thus forming the core teachings of Islam. The word "Islam" means "submission" (to [[Allah]]) in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. Islam teaches that one must gain salvation through submission to the one true God. Islam is known as one of the world's most violent religions, there have been over 16,000 terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam since 2001.<ref>http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/</ref>. [[Liberals]] however, frequently ignore the violence of Islam (refering to critics as "racists" and "Islamophobes") while they focus on baselessly attacking Christianity, a religion with a long history of charity and self sacrifice<ref>http://www.ccusa.org/</ref><ref>http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/charity.html</ref>.

A follower of Islam is called a "[[Muslim]]" or "Moslem", a term which means "one who submits (to Allah)". The older terms "Mohammedan" and "Muhammedan" ("follower of Muhammad"), have fallen out of use.<ref> Additional archaic terms for Muslims include "Hagarene", and "Saracen". Saracen as a term for Muslims was limited to the Crusade era, although it makes frequent re-appearances in pre-modern polemics. Hagarene was a more common term in pre-modern works, as it denotes the biblical connection of Hagar the mother of Ishmael who is reported as the patriarch of Islam. Additional names for Muslims in pre-modern and Medieval works are generally derived from misspellings.</ref>

==Theology==
There are no clergy, but there are religious teachers, or [[Imam]]s, who have their followings. All Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of Muhammad, whom they believe to be Allah's ('''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) last and greatest [[prophet]]. The teachings of Muhammad are transmitted through the [[Qur'an]], the Hadith, and the Sunnah. The Sunnah is a general term for "the life and doings of the Prophet", which all Muslims are called on to replicate. The faith teaches that the Archangel [[Gabriel]] appeared to Muhammad in a cave reciting verbatim a revelation from Allah. The first word that Gabriel says to Muhammad is "Iqra" or "Recite/Poclaim",which is found in the 96th Sura of the Qur'an.

Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an (or Koran) to Muhammad. The key miracle of Islam comes from the historical condition of the illiterate and uneducated Muhammad, as the Qur'an is composed in an erudite and complex form of Arabic prose and poetry<ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The Qur'an was not written down in a systemised fashion until a decade after Muhammad died, preferable transmission being through oral recenscion.The Qur'an is considered to be the pure and holy word of God, uncreated and eternal. In Islamic theology the term uncreated is very important, as it implies that there is no author for the Qur'an, only the delivering ot the word to Muhammad who delivered it to the Sahab and the Salaf (The Companions and the Pure), who delivered it to the scribe delegated to record it in the reign of the Caliph Uthman bin Affan.

==Origins==
Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam originated in the Middle East. Islam claims to trace its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets that followed as recorded in the lost books of the Tawrat and Injil.

Based upon this belief, the [[Bible]], both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s, is believed to have become corrupted through the [[Bible translations|translations and misinterpretations]] accumulated over several millenia. The criticism of the [[Torah]] centers around the reconstruction of the existing Biblical text required after the "[[Babylon]]ian captivity". The criticism of the New Testament centers in the many disputed gnostic texts which contradict the orthodox biblical canon. Interestingly, Islamic jurisprudence accepts that the Injil was complete and whole up until the revelation of Muhammad. Therefore there is some inconsistency in the claims made against the New Testament. For more information, see [[The Bible versus the Qur'an]].
[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], one of the holy cities of Islam.]]

==Today==
Islam is the worlds second largest religion, with over 1.6 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to conversions, high birth rates, and redefinitions of the term 'Muslim'. Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but cannot keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

[[Indonesia]] has the largest Muslim population in the world.

==Historical Background==

According to Islamic belief, in approximately 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], located in the Hijaz (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] (or Jibreel) to "recite" the message of Allah (The Muslim god). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgment day.

The message to Muhammad was to be God's last and fullest revelation, a direct copy of the Umm Al Khitab, the mother of all books located in heaven next to God; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or the city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Muhammad's forces, composed of the sahaba (companions) from Mecca ,and the Ansar (allied tribes from Yathrib) started attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632.
[[File:Islam750.jpg|thumb|590px]]

Tribal elders in a traditional council called the "Shura" elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through conquest and negotiation into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], South-east and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

The Muslim armies conquered and superseded the ancient Sassanid and Byzantine empires which had ruled before. Within a generation of Muhammad's death Muslim armies occupied an empire stretching from the Nile river to the far off Iranian province of khorasan. Reasons for the rapid conquest are varied and obscure. The Arab armies were more akin to tribal war bands raiding and settling where and when they could. The Byzantine and Sassanid empires had been at war for centuries. The constant simmering conflict between Constantinople and Persia reached a climax in the early 7th century. The Sassanids conquered briefly Egypt and the Levant threatening the central Byzantine heartland of Anatolia. Under the military reforms of the emperor Heraclius, the Byzantine army consolidated and counter attacked, recapturing all that they had lost and capturing the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon in 628.

This brief end of the Roman-Persian wars disrupted the frontier areas which had predicated their economies on raiding and mercenary activities. Two major areas in Arabia were directly affected. The Lackmid tribe and the Gassanid tribe both acted as mercenaries for the Persians and Romans. The official religion of both tribes analogically mirrored that of their overseers. Monophysite Christianity was common, particularly of the Jacobite sect. The death of Muhammad and the subsequent Ridda wars occupied these warrior tribes until the reign of Caliph Umar. Additionally, there was great religious unrest in the levant and Egypt. These areas resented the ruinous taxes and the harsh orthodoxy imposed by the emperor in Constantinople.

The same climate was present in the Sassanid realm with the rise of the dualism of the Manicheans. Under the Caliph Umar ,the Arab tribes which had concluded the infighting following the death of Muhammad were allowed to raid into the Byzantine and Sassanid fronteirs. The weakened state of both regimes from both military and economic exhaustion and religious unrest made them fertile picking grounds for the tribal warbands. The Arabs were chiefly successful in holding these areas in that they upheld a lightweight regime of low taxes based in the Islamic laws and distant government. Rather than employing an army of bureaucrats and nobility, the early Arab empire was more favorable towards maintaining the existing government structures under the leadership of Arab tribes. In this atmosphere it is hardly surprising to note the reports from both Muslim and Christian sources of peaceful capitulation and invitation of the invading forces.

==Divisions Within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name possibly derived from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Religious Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Qur'an as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written Qur'an that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Qur'an is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Qur'an as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Qur'an and able to offer commentaries on Qur'anic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Qur'an or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Qur'an, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

==Other Aspects of Islam==
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Muslims who believe as bin Laden does is growing, and others go further to suggest that all "fundamentalist" Muslims are enemies of the West. But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow murderers such as bin Laden or other terrorists. These observers suggest that the fundamentalists disagree with bin Laden as much as do Westerners, yet remain silent out of fear or disrespect for non-believing "infidels". Many westerners are still haunted by the images of cheering crowds dancing in the streets when the 9/11 attacks were announced and were disappointed at the lack of prominent condemnation of the attack from Islamic circles worldwide.

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Qur'an and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Qur'an, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Qur'an and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
[[File:Muslim girls at Istiqlal Mosque Jakarta Indonesia.jpg|left|thumb|240px|Muslim girls at Istiqlal [[Mosque]], Jakarta.]]
In pre-Islamic times women's rights were defined by tribal laws which differed amongst the tribes. Some women had absolute equity and the ability to hold power, while some women were treated worse than chattel; bride prices, unlimited polygamy, and female infanticide were a common theme. Islamic law standardised the situation on the Arabian peninsula, at a level slightly above the lowest,granting women limited rights an distinct legal individuals, a restricted right to divorce, and required her not to directly object to a marriage contract in order for it to have validity. It also limited polygamy to a maximum of four wives at any one time, though the use of "temporary" marriage in effect rendered this restriction meaningless. That was over a thousand years ago and there has been little progress since. The reality of traditional Sharia law as applied in the modern era has shocked the modern conscience. <ref>Linda Rae Bennett, ''Women, Islam and Modernity'' (2005)</ref>.

Women are treated as inferiors to men in almost every regard. For example, women are required to cover the head and body in public, by wearing the hijab. Hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and western street clothes may be acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque [[Burqa]] was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. The treatment of women may depend upon rural or urban settings, educational level, society norms, tradition, or other factors. As of 2008, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are the most significant Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of restrictive garb, though cultural pressure in most Islamic countries lives women little choice but to submit to the dictat of hijab. [[Honor killing]] is winked at.

Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education.

Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of the criminal law of the country, and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, Turkey has a majority Muslim population yet still grants women rights near-equal to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, though these are the countries were traditional Islam is strongest. They point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, ignoring the efforts of traditionalists in Turkey to end the freedoms women enjoy.

Muslim women's status is controversial. Whilst Muslim men control and oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities, Islamic apologists defend some practices suggest that many of them, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect women from predatory men.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the [[Dome of the Rock]] mosque. According to the Qur'an (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims can have dogs for safety. Muslims are prohibited from drinking alcoholic beverages, gambling, and from collecting interest on financial transactions.

===Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings===
FGM (also known as female circumcision) is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" condition for a woman, and act to carry out. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, though not in Coptic Egypt as some Islamic apologists claim. Another pagan practice practice continued in Islamic countries is [[honor killing]], in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that "dishonored" the family through supposedly, "promiscuous" behaviour. This "promiscuous" activity often includes women from Islamic societies living in the West aspiring to a Western/Christian lifestyle. The "honor killing" is more ancient, and pagan in origin, but tolerated and practised more or less openly in many Muslim societies, and is totally keeping with Shariah law, at least in regards to adultery, in that the woman should be killed.

==Islam and Christianity==
see [[Dhimma]]

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the Resurrection, they consider Him and His mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshipping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that non-believers will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified (same as similar statements in the Bible and the Torah):

{{cquote|Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."
}}
::(Qur'an 5:73-75)

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in Arabic) as a founding prophet.

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]], amongst others]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Most Islamic scholars regard Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established during the early stages of the Islamic Empire, though a few scholars also believe contemporary legal cases can and should shape the law, though such thinkers may be subject to ridicule and even threats from Islamists.

Sharia law proscribes often brutal punishments for acts, that, in the western world, are relatively minor. For example, under sharia law, converting from Islam is punishable by death,<ref>[http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html]</ref> whilst women found guilty of adultery is punishable by stoning to death, which often includes many rape victims, as Sharia courts often regard a rape victim as guilty of adultery unless she can provide four witnesses to the act of rape.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6148590.stm</ref> In cases involving the death penalty of corporal punishment, methods of carrying out the punishment are often barbaric, and include public beheading, chopping off of the hand, and flogging.<ref>http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/punishment-in-saudi-arabia/</ref> Many Islamist groups have been attempting to have Shariah courts set up in European countries, initially to rule over civil cases between Muslims in Europe.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html</ref>

==Terminology==
Additional archaic terms for Muslims include , but are not limited to, "Hagarene" and "Saracen". The term Hagarene was more common in post-crusade Europe as it made specific reference to the biblical mother of Ishmael. Ishmael in the Muslim faith plays an analogous theological role to Isaac. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, (1992)</ref>

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref>

<ref>''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back] </ref>

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Ramadan]]
*[[In the midst of a Maelstrom: the Holy Spirit and silence: an essay]] encounter of Israeli Messianic Jew and Egyptian Muslim in Alexandria

==Further reading==
* Armour, Rollin. ''Islam, Christianity, and the West: A Troubled History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Christianity-West-Troubled-History/dp/1570754071/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-32 excerpt and text search]
* Armstrong, Karen. ''Islam: A Short History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Berkey, Jonathan P. ''The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Islam-Religion-Society-600-1800/dp/0521588138/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Campo, Juan Eduardo. ''Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2009), basic introduction
* Esposito, John J. ''The Oxford History of Islam'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Glasse, Cyril. ''The New Encyclopedia of Islam'' ( 2nd ed. 2008)
* Lewis, Bernard. ''Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East'' (2001), by leading conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-People-Events-Middle/dp/0812695186/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, Richard C. et al. ''Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World'' (2003), more advanced
* Newby, Gordon. ''A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Encyclopedia-Islam-Gordon-Newby/dp/1851682953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342942&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Robinson, Chase F. ed. ''The New Cambridge History of Islam'' (Volume 1) (2009), summarizes advanced scholarship
* Ruthven, Malise, and Azim Nanji. ''Historical Atlas of Islam'' (2004)
* Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. (1992)
* Sonn, Tamara and Mary Williamsburg. ''A Brief History of Islam'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Blackwell-Histories-Religion/dp/1405109009/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Wheatcroft, Andrew. ''Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Infidels-History-Conflict-Between-Christendom/dp/0812972392/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Qur'an online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]
* Congressional Research Service, "Islam: A Primer", Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain and the source of part of this article [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]
*[http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/01/islamists-torch-pope-in-effigy-again.html Islamists Torch Pope in Effigy, Again]
*[http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/december/849_kind-strangers.html Muslims Saving Jews During World War II.] By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh.
*[http://differencesbetween.com/islam-and-muslim/ Difference Between Islam and Muslim]

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

[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Talk:Dinosaur

2011-06-30T02:22:25Z

HarabecW: /* Popular Culture Re-Work */ new section

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



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

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

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

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Let me say 1st off like most peolple with any basic background in molecular biology, I beleive in evolution. I'm not trying to hide my view point, but I'm not trying to cause arguments for the sake of it either . I'm just curious on this view point, is there any scientific evidance (even speculative evidance ie. based on tooth shape etc.) to support the view point that all Dinosaurs were herbavoirs, or is it just that the bible indirectlty implies it ( all animals came to be about the same time and there was no death before sin, therefore dinosaurs only ate plants? I'm I correct that this is the reasoning? Though not to be too technical, plants and bacteria are alive too. If they ate these there would be death too (unless they ate only from larger plants ie. only the leaves off the tress but never grass for example.)
-Damien Rivers
: The Bible doesn't merely imply it. It says that plants were to be food for the animals and humans. As for evidence, it's probably more of a lack of conclusive evidence for the evolutionary view. Some creatures classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth don't eat meat! The fruit bat is one example. Further, many carnivores can survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. Also, there are examples of closely-related species in which one is herbivorous and the other is carnivorous. We also have examples of herbivores (e.g. sheep) eating meat on occasion. So there is considerable evidence that originally-herbivorous creatures becoming carnivorous is quite plausible, and so really nothing in science to refute the biblical claim of the animals ''originally'' being herbivorous.
: As far as plants and bacteria being alive is concerned, see [[classification system]] and realise that it depends on your definition. The modern scientific definition is that they are alive, but the biblical definition is that they are not. The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::...which is part of why I'm skeptical of Biblical inerrantism, Philip. I find it difficult to imagine anyone using that as their definition, and I find it extremely difficult to imagine that it's the definition God intended us to employ. There are, after all, a great many creatures other than plants and bacteria which do ''not'' breathe air through their nostrils.

::Biblical exegesis is well and good, but I think too many people place too much faith in the ability of modern man to accurately and faithfully analyze linguistic nuance. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Umm, yeah? What does that have to do with inerrancy? As the article on [[classification system]]s points out, "some systems may be better, or more useful than others, ''especially for a given purpose''" (emphasis altered). The point is, the Bible had a ''different'' purpose than modern science. The Bible's classification system wasn't intended for scientific use. Beyond that, your response amounts to saying, "I can't see how that would be useful, so the Bible must be wrong.", which makes your lack of imagination the benchmark for deciding biblical accuracy! What arrogance! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not at all. My response amounts to "When an assertion is made concerning the original meaning of the Bible, and when this assertion conflicts with observed evidence, it is likely that the assertion is in error." I must confess to not even being sure of which passage you're referring to, as the only passage I can think of offhand that mentions the breath of life in conjunction with the nostrils is Genesis 7:22--and no translation of Genesis 7:22 I have ever read makes "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." a benchmark for all that is living. In fact, it immediately links that qualifier to "...of all that was in the dry land." (There's also Genesis 2:7, but that's referring exclusively to Adam, so I can't imagine it's the basis of your claim.) If there is another line I'm overlooking elsewhere, please feel free to point it out; while I study the Bible, I do not claim to have it committed perfectly to memory, and it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking the line on which you base your argument.

::::Moreover, I can observe that the definition you offered ("The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.") seems rather strongly at odds with Genesis 1:20, which establishes that the creatures brought forth from the water had life. You could add the qualifier that this only applies to creatures on dry land, as per Genesis 7:22, but as I already pointed out, Genesis 7:22 does not establish that only those creatures that had the breath of life in their nostrils were alive; merely that the ones who did and were on dry land all died. It would be possible to argue that "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is in the poetic mode, and meant to refer to a broader range of respiration than strictly the nostrils, but that would also undermine the definition offered.

:::: Is my skepticism when someone says "The Bible says..." or "The Biblical definition is..." arrogance? Perhaps. I think it would be far more arrogant if I were to assume that current scholarship has so successfully captured the nuance and idiom of the autographic texts that no significant errors of understanding remain.

:::: I have faith in God. I know, however, how difficult it is to perfectly render an author's original intent even when you share the author's language, culture, and frame of reference. I would greet ''any'' claim by any scholar that they perfectly comprehended the idiom and tropes of a writer two thousand years dead with healthy skepticism. I know that some advance the argument that it is God's Word, and therefore, He will ensure understanding--but, again, that claim conflicts with what has been observed throughout history. Men...even saintly men...are capable of misunderstanding God's Word, and so coming to wrong conclusions about the world around them. God has not prevented this from happening, so it would be arrogant indeed to presume that He will do so now.

:::: If you want to argue that the writers of the Bible did not consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals, I completely agree; I take no issue with that part of your statement. Certainly, they didn't consider bacteria to be alive...it's extremely unlikely that they considered bacteria at all (I suppose it's possible that God revealed the existence of bacteria to them, but it seems pretty doubtful.) However, I disagree that the Bible defines living things as those that breathe air through their nostrils. I think a stronger case could be made for mobility, and even THAT is not offered as an exclusive definition. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

''NB: Following a request from Benp to move this discussion to another page, I have replied to him on [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment#Dinosaur discussion continuation|my talk page]]''.

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Adaptation and evolution ==
(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section. The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there. However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'm going to have to disagree with DavidR on a couple of his points, but then I will address the more substantial problems with Entheogenicorder's posts.

Leading creationists recommend that we ''don't'' talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is. The real problem is the ''type'' (or ''direction'') of change, not the ''size'' of the change.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a ''fact''. In science, the word "theory" does ''not'' imply something uncertain.

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

"''Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing''": As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one [[Definitions of evolution|defines evolution]] (read that). Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but microbe-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

"''If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.''", "''Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?''": I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He [[creation Week|''clearly'' told us that He created the world in six days]] (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

"''...accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof.''": No, we are accepting what God has clearly said about the ''history'' of this world over ''man-made'' theories by ''scientists'' trying to give us an alternative ''history''. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about ''history'').

"''[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today''": First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall. He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as ''the'' explanation, but it is a ''possible'' explanation. Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores. Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous—there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/279/] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

"''I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!''": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved? I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:If that is your take of things, I don't see why you have any problem with what I said. You may have misread my post, but I did not say anything about the ''size'' of an evolutionary change. Furthermore, I do not think microevolution takes size into consideration, rather it is influenced by type, as you stated. If you think that microevolution is change ''within'' a species, I cannot disagree. Also, you assume I think scientists who interpret the Theory of Evolution as scientific law are thinking clearly; I don't. In addition, a theory ''may'' not be something un''certain'', but it is certainly something un''proven''. That is all. I hope I cleared things up. :\ --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 22:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::I don't think you understand what a theory is-- It's not an unfounded guess. It's the closest you get to "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY TRUE" in science. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:: DavidR, I apologise for not being careful enough in my post. It's not that you said anything explicit about the size of the change, but size is what is implied in talking about ''micro''evolution vs. ''macro''evolution. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what people will likely understand from the user of those terms. It's not a matter of what I think microevolution is. The term is imprecise.
:: Nothing in science is considered ''proven'', so prepending "theory" to it does not downgrade it at all.
:: In case ''I'' need to clear anything up, I was disagreeing with you on those two points only; overall, I agreed with you.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this.

:::“''I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He clearly told us that He created the world in six days (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said''” God has not clearly said anything to me, has He told you in person? What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old and has been endlessly translated from one language to another. It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations. For example, it is widely accepted that Roman historical records prove the existence of Jesus at roughly the same time as we base our calendar around. Therefore, from studying similar Roman records from a later date, it should be considered that some time later, as is historically recorded, Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held. Therefore – for me – it is very difficult to be sure exactly what God told us. Please also see below.

:::“''We are accepting what God has clearly said about the history of this world over man-made theories by scientists trying to give us an alternative history. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about history).” '' I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said, not what God has directly said to you (unless he has?). The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes, especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’. In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical, not a popular view here I imagine but that is my understanding of it. For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years, representing levels of development and culminating in our evolution. With regards to your second point, because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields? You may argue that Religion covers all aspects of life, but a Physicist will probable tell you that so does Physics, and I would argue that so does Philosophy.

:::If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible, I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc, if it had also to be filled with dinosaurs. I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all for 40 days and 40 nights, especially if you take into account that the animals would have needed fresh food, fresh water, fresh hay to sleep on and of course, room to exercise.

:::“''Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on an herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores.”'' The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge. In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’. Carnivores have no mechanism for this. I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!

:::On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before any human – or mammal – remains have been found. This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong. I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:23, 1 February 2008 (BWT)

:::: I see that you've been doing what Andy refers to as [[liberal deceit]]. You make out that you believe at least some of the Bible ("I was brought up with ... the morals as taught by Christ", and "DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything"), now show your true colours, in that you don't think the Bible is reliable enough to take any notice of!
:::: "''God has not clearly said anything to me...''": He has, in the Bible, whether you choose to accept that or not.
:::: "''What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old ...''": Which is consistent with it being written at the time the events happened, which makes it more reliable than something written much later. So that's a ''good'' thing. Strike 1.
:::: "''...and has been endlessly translated from one language to another''": Incorrect, in the sense that you are implying. Modern English translations of the Bible have been translated ''directly'' from the original languages. Again, that supports the idea that it is accurate. Strike 2.
:::: "''It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations.''": You can "conceive" anything you want with a vivid enough imagination, but the ''evidence'' is that the manuscripts have been handed down ''accurately''. Strike 3; you're out.
:::: "''...Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held''": There's your imagination running away again. The evidence is otherwise.
:::: "''I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said...''": Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?
:::: "''The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes...''": Perhaps your difficulty stems from trying to read the literal as metaphorical. Or else you simply know little about making such distinctions. But your inability to do this does not give you ''carte blanche'' to pick and choose what to believe. The experts agree, for example, that the creation account was meant to be understood literally. The language is not that of metaphor. An example of metaphor is elsewhere in the Old Testament where is says that the trees clapped their hands.
:::: "''...especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’.''": Examples please?
:::: "''In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical...For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years.''": Well, you are wrong, as mentioned above, and as the link to [[Creation Week]] above explains. Did you read that?
:::: "''...because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields?''": Oh dear, another lack of comprehension. I wasn't talking about ''discussing'' multiple fields, but speaking ''authoritatively'' about them. Those scientists can discuss ''history'' as much as they like, but they have no more ''authority'' on the subject than me, and I'm not claiming any. I'm quoting other authorities and offering evidence, not claiming that I'm an authority. You can quote other scientists' arguments as much as you like, but the case stands or falls on the strength of their arguments, not their authority, because when it comes to ''history'', they have none.
:::: "''If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible...''": I don't. I accept that there are parables, metaphors, etc. in the Bible. But the Flood account is history, so...
:::: "''I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc...''": ''Proposed'' size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?
:::: "''I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all...''": Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)
:::: "''...for 40 days and 40 nights...''": Showing your ignorance again? The Bible records that they were on the ark for just over a year.
:::: "''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.''": Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary.
:::: "''In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’''": What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat. Which means that a carnivore would have problems eating vegetable matter, but a herbivore would not have the same problems eating meat. Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.
:::: "''Carnivores have no mechanism for this''": Yet some carnivores survive quite satisfactorily on a herbivorous diet.
:::: "''I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!''": There's been recent accounts of them doing so.
:::: "''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago...''": No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence.
:::: "''This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.''": No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.
:::: "''I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth.''": See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here]. I wouldn't normally direct you to an entire web-site for an answer to a specific question, but in your case, you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Admittedly I thought I was clearer at the start in saying that despite being brought up as a Christian, I do not follow the Religion in any institutionalized sense. I would like to point out that it was not a case of me consciously practising [[liberal deceit]]. I was brought up a Christian and I do believe that to deny the true nature of the universe is to take something away from the idea of God. I do believe in what the Bible has to say about loving your brother, equality among all men and many of the other important lessons which are put together into stories. My point here was to ask you to examine your own beliefs and for me to examine my own. As [[Socrates]] once said ‘a life unexamined is a life not worth living.’

:::::From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis, and for a large part it depends on their religious orientation. Many understand the main creation story literally, but others don’t. A small group of Christians, apparently known as '[[Progressive Creationists]]' have spoken to me about the 6-days of creation existing in a metaphorical sense, and this is where much of my confusion arises; if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page. What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities! I can understand the points in the [[Creation Week]] link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God, but my point is about the writing down of the Bible; it may be just my curious nature to question everything, but I would question; would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being? Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do? With regards to the reference to morning and evening; if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference? And even though it is partially covered in the [[Creation Week]] link, could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules and often with revelatory texts, seeks to break with tradition.

:::::You may believe that God spoke to you through The Bible and I may believe that he has, but I may also believe that Buddha has passed on some of his enlightened wisdom in his texts when he says; ‘do not believe on the faith of Sages of the past’. My point was that Moses (and others) traditionally wrote much of the Old Testament, and Moses was a man. Men often create or imagine figures of God or ideas of Spirituality in order to persuade themselves that they are inspired by a higher power. They also create ideas in order to manipulate groups of people into abiding by their will. Men are also often wrong. Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God, even if you believe that the Bible is exactly what Moses (etc.) said and wrote. As you well know, the first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Pentateuch". Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5. I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.

:::::My small point about translation (your Strike 1, 2 & 3) was questioning – as you point out the language is quite loose; ‘isn’t it conceivable that…over thousands of years’ etc. If you read the King James Version, it is most likely that you have as accurate version as possible. As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past, we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is. To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian, scientist, philosopher or anything, so even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.

:::::''Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?'' Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. I wrote, directly from me, that ‘Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible.’ You could only use this argument if I had said it to another person, who had then written it down and conveyed it to you. As I am saying it directly to you, there is less scope for my meaning to be lost. If I said it to an acquaintance of mine, who then thought about it and then passed it on to you, he may not convey my entire message. He may give you the gist of it, but not all of the intricate details, he may wish to elaborate on it, or even change some of the ideas if he couldn’t understand them, or he may even include his own ideas. So you see the difference I’m trying to establish; if God spoke to you in the same way he did Moses, then you would know that what he had said to you was the authentic Word of God, although there’s a fair chance you’d be called a maniac for preaching it. If God says something to Moses, who then writes it into stories and commentaries, or passes them on through generations of oral story telling as is argued by some scholars, then some of His meaning might be lost, confused, misinterpreted etc.

:::::''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.” Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary… What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat… …Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.”'' Firstly, it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence. I provided a brief summation of characteristics usually associated with herbivores, I didn’t mean to over-generalize because obviously there are some exceptions, but many dinosaur fossils found display the same attributes, for example, as elephants do, for grinding the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells. There are also obvious examples of dinosaurs whose physiology is generally geared towards hunting. Secondly, theoretically this is so, but moreover I was trying to examine the differences there can be between herbivores and carnivores. I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.

:::::''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago…” : No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence…” …this idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.: No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.”'' I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods. If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating, which have been used to accurately measure the ages of various buildings and relics around the world then please, let me know, but don’t try and discredit what I’m saying by using the evolutionary theory argument, because that is not relevant here. Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen [http://www.s8int.com/edom.html here], however when it is used to prove the age of the dinosaurs is millions of years, it is repudiated, often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’ or ‘the methods are inaccurate’, though most leading scientists maintain that these claims are [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html unfounded]. Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know. It is the dating techniques using ‘rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years’ to which I am referring.

::::: ''Proposed size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?'' No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better. 300 x 50 x 30 cubits could have meant anything to me; I thought maybe you could provide me with a useful answer of how big that would be in terms of commonly used measurements today, rather than attack the wording and theory of my question. Please also do not accuse me of readily dismissing anything; it is with some consideration and a desire for truth that I look beyond what I have been taught. Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!

:::::''You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough...'' Being English I love a good bit of sarcasm and that was pretty tasty! It was a sweeping generalization admittedly, but the reason for the ambiguity in figures is that as you can see above, I had no idea how big the stated size of the ark actually meant it was, and also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation, or a more general division.

:::::''I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.'' Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view. I can accept that some of the things I have written are probably wrong, and others have been phrased badly. I hope you can as well. My original post here had no real agenda, and this has now developed very much into a two person discusion of providing counter-arguments for each other without getting far. Whilst I have found it useful and also very interesting, I had hoped to find more of a discussion with a lot more theoretical and philosophical musings. I find it very frustrating that we, as humans, unconditionally rely on unproven science and theoretical history to prove our own points, whilst dismissing other science because it is only theoretical. That is the very point of science, and the very nature of it since Aristotle first set out a logical way of thinking. You observe, predict, then experiment and adjust; it is an ongoing process of refining and defining. Once you have created a theory, as a scientist the very first thing you should do is to examine it under the conditions it is most likely to be proved false. That is science; it doesn’t claim to know the ultimate answers, just guide you towards what’s right. While this is completely off-topic again, I found it very [http://members.aol.com/projbin/plerdyn.htm interesting]. I hope you don't find my points or arguments offensive because they aren't meant to be. As I have said before, my purpose here is understanding, hoping both to be understood and to understand. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:57, 5 February 2008 (BWT)

::::::"''From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis''": It depends on what "experts" you are referring to. There are many who claim to know what it means, but have little claim to the title "expert". The experts I was referring to were the ones mentioned in the Barr quote in [[Creation Week]]: professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities. According to Barr, they are all agree on the meaning of the text, that it was six ordinary days.
::::::"''...for a large part it depends on their religious orientation.''": For many of the so-called "experts", probably true. But the experts that Barr was quoting would not, for the most part, believe the account to be literally true. Barr himself is theologically liberal, I believe, but he is explaining what the text is saying, even though he doesn't believe that to be a true and accurate account.
::::::"''...if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page''": In that sense, your confusion is understandable. But you need to go beyond just noting that different groups have different beliefs and see how good their arguments are.
::::::"''What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities!''": That's being unkind (ascribing to them the motive of beleiving what suits them). Most non-fiction texts are literal peppered with metaphors. Take a newspaper, for example. You are meant to understand the news as literal events, but even that newspaper will include metaphors in the text, as metaphors are a normal everyday part of language. So there's nothing odd about the Bible being that way. Also, metaphors are discernable by the context. If the newspaper said that so-and-so had passed away after a heart attack, you know that "passed away" is a metaphor for "died", and you have no reason to wonder if "heart attack" is literal or metaphorical. Acknowledging that the Bible contains metaphor is not an argument of convenience, but a simple recognition of the nature of the text.
::::::"''I can understand the points in the Creation Week link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God...''": You don't need to do that, for most of them at least. The points are mostly to do with understanding the language.
::::::"''...would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being?''": Surely a perfect and omnipotent (and omniscient) being would have the capability of describing things in a way that Moses could understand?
::::::"''...Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do?''": Wouldn't God use language that Moses understood? Besides, from what we understand of God, He doesn't experience day and night: That is something that He created as part of His creation, so He would ''have to be'' talking about earthly days, not any other ones.
::::::"''...if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference?''": Why? Why explain the meaning of words to people who already understand the language?
::::::"''...could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules ...''": In order for something to be called "poetry", it has to follow ''some'' rules, else you could call any text poetry. Sure, the rules might differ in different cultures and at different times in history, but there's still got to be rules. There's no point proposing that a text is poetry without having some reason for doing so, and I don't consider a desire to not take the text literally to be such a reason.
::::::"'''Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God...''": I can be sure. That is, I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence of God's ultimate authorship of it to be convinced of that. You, of course, may not be so convinced. Some will never be convinced, because they will refuse to believe no matter what. But this is not the place to get into the evidence for that.
::::::"''Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5.''": I would not be the first nor the last time that someone has written of themselves in the third person. And it's more than tradition that it was written by Moses, including Jesus Himself testifying to that. Of course that doesn't mean that a later person (e.g. Joshua) didn't append an epilogue to it to record Moses' death, so that fact is not reason to reject Moses' authorship.
::::::"''I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.''": I also find Christians to be somewhat inconsistent like that, but I also find many sceptics, such as yourself, using loaded language, such as referring to people who believe the Bible as "Christians" and those who question it as "scholars". It is nonsense like this, along with many stupid and inconsistent arguments against the Bible, that causes sceptics to have little credibility even with Christians who are more open to examining critical views. A classic example is Thomas Paine using the very point that you used about Deuteronomy recording Moses' death meaning that Moses could not have written the book, yet he acknowledged in his own book that a previous edition ''contained something that he had not himself written''! Did he therefore reject his own authorship of his book? Or acknowledge that he was inconsistent in denying Mosaic authorship? Of course not. When it comes to criticising the Bible, very often anything goes, including inconsistency.
::::::"''As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past...''": So I guess you don't know when you were born?
::::::"''...we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is''": We can "know" what happened about as well as we can know anything. How do I know that man has been to the moon (which happened in my lifetime)? Because I saw evidence and heard that it happened from people I considered to be reliable. How do I know what happened during World War II (which happened before I was born)? The same answer. How do I know what happened 2000 years ago? The same answer. Sure, for much of history the evidence is quite scant, and so we can't be sure, but that's not true all the time, so in many cases we can be as sure of it as we can be of almost anything.
::::::"''To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian...''": Not true. If the evidence is scant, a historian may not have much to go on, but it ''is'' his area of authority.
::::::"''...even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.''": Because words in two different languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence, this is inevitable in a sense. But given the number of different experts (translators, etc.) who have studied this, the worst that can be said is that the English translations don't 100% convey every subtlety of the original languages. But that's a whole lot different to claiming that there is any substantial change that has occurred, and to therefore questioning the veracity of the Bible.
::::::"''Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. (rest snipped)''": The problem with your rebuttal is that it is a straw-man argument. If you wrote something down and gave it to your friend, and your friend carefully rewrote it verbatim and passed it on to me, there is no more chance of misunderstanding arising than if you had written it and given it directly to me. So my argument was not logically flawed. What you probably assumed before but have now stated explicitly is that the Bible was passed down by oral tradition. There's two problems with this. One is that the people at the time were quite practiced at accurately passing things on orally, as that was a common way of passing on information. The second problem is that I know of no reason why the Bible was ever passed on orally, and believe that it was always written down.
::::::"''...it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence.''": If you didn't offer evidence, it would have been an ''unsubstantiated assertion'', but providing evidence doesn't mean that it wasn't an assertion.
::::::"''I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.''": I don't see your point. I'm not claiming that all dinosaurs were carnivorous. God created creatures herbivorous. Some time later, some started eating meat (which, because of the reduced digestive requirements, should not pose any problems). As far as catching the meat is concerned, some creatures would be better at that than other creatures, specifically those that already had sharper teeth, for example. Furthermore, creationists claim that God provided a fair amount of built-in variability in the genes, so possibly there was already the capability of, for example, a variety of teeth forms so that some creatures might develop teeth better suited for carnivory, and natural selection then favours those creatures. You might think that this is evolution, but the distinction is that the "better" teeth required nothing new, as the genetic information already existed.
::::::"''I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods.''": The dating methods are based on evolutionary theory (or naturalism, to be more precise) and the fossils do not show evolution.
::::::"''If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating...''": See [[radiometric dating]].
::::::"''Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen here...''": Carbon dating, yes, but rarely if ever other forms. Carbon dating is able to be calibrated with artefacts of known age for the last few thousand years, so creationists don't take issue with those dates, but get beyond a few thousand years and the methods can't be calibrated.
::::::"''...often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’...''": I don't recall ''ever'' seeing that particular claim.
::::::"''Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know.''": Well, that puts you ahead of many of the evolutionists who argue with me!
::::::"''No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better.''": Modern translations have it in modern measurements, in footnotes if not the actual text. And it's really not that hard to find out what a cubit was anyway, and not my job to tell you something that you could so easily find for yourself.
::::::"''Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!''": Not only those alive today, but those that have gone extinct as well. The average size of a dinosaur was about that of a chicken, if I recall correctly. Only relatively few were really large creatures, and it would have been better (for reproduction after the flood) to take young dinosaurs onto the ark, not fully grown ones. But I'm glad to see that you have learnt something! I don't think you're totally correct about the size of ancient boats, though.
::::::"''...also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation...''": If you read what the leading young-Earth creationists claim, instead of their critics and people who haven't really studied it, there would have been no reason for your confusion.
::::::"''Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view.''": What makes you think I only know it from one point of view? I get evolution thrust at me in the media, on the Internet, in endless debates with sceptics, in science journals and magazines, and books. I know quite a bit about both sides of the issue. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have relatively little knowledge of the creationist side of the issue. Hence my comment was justified. How much reading of the creationist view ''have'' you done?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== Dinosaurs are not Reptiles ==

Please remove that. >_< [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
:Why aren't they reptiles? I can find a number of sources that say that they are. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, reptiles are cold-blooded. The size and location of dinosaur remains, as well as their internal bone structures, have resulted in the discovery that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless this is [[common knowledge]], we'll need a reference or source for it. The article's not protected. --JJJ {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::: It's not common knowledge, because, as I said, I can find a number of sources that say that dinosaurs are reptiles. So I agree a source is needed. And I have two questions. 1) Is cold-bloodedness (still) considered a defining characteristic of reptiles (as distinct from a typical characteristic)? That is, does finding that dinosaurs are warm-blooded mean that they are not reptiles, or does it mean that cold-bloodedness is no longer considered an absolute requirement of reptilianness? 2) Have all dinosaurs been found to be warm-blooded, or just some? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is my understanding that some dinosaurs were found to be warm-blooded. I am not aware of any reclassification away from Reptilian. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why does this page and these thoeries ignore Megafauna? ==

Do you guys even know about megafauna? Why do you automaticlly assume that if antiquity mentions large animals, they are mentioning dinosaurs?

What about the megalania? Or the giant sharks, turtles and crocs of 30,000 years ago? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
: I know about megafauna, but what I don't know is what relevance they have to this article. Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Loch Ness Should Be Removed==

I dont want to get in to the debate of whether or not dino's were around with people or not but I think the Loch Ness section should be removed. Numerous reseachers have scoured the Loch and found nothing, no concrete evidence has been found and the famous "Surgeons picture" was admitted as fake by the surgeon on his deathbed. I may not agree with the premise of this article however I do believe it should a least remain *credible*.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:29, 19 February 2008 (EST)
: I'm not an expert on the Loch Ness monster, but I would have thought that there were a number of other claimed sightings that a particular picture being faked doesn't change a lot. The entry is already there in a qualified way rather than a definite way, so I don't think it matters a lot, and is (as far as I know) accurate in that people who believe it exists think that it could be a plesiosaur. But removing it wouldn't bother me too much. Anyway, I've unlocked the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'll take it out. Also, if there was a pleisour there it would have to be very old and there is not enough food to support a large carnivore such as a dinosaur. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:Maybe we can classify Nessie as "reported" - pending a really clear photo or some bones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Name==
The Greek translation of the name "dinosaur" is to be included; it is part of the history of the subject. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

==Source for claim needed==
The section regarding human and dinosaur fossils states that "It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn't live together." We should consider providing a citation that shows a prominent evolutionist making such an assertion. The current citation is unfortunately inadequate as it also fails to give an example. I fear that without such backing, this comes off sounding like a straw man argument. Any thoughts? Does anyone know where we can find something like this? [[User:Jdisciple|Jdisciple]] 11:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: The article doesn't claim that "prominent evolutionists" say this. I've added a reference to TalkOrigins saying effectively what this article refers to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Philip I believe you have misinterpreted the TalkOrigins response. When he says "There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs" he is talking about that none are found within the same period of time, and he goes on to say "If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places." That statement should be taken out unless someone can show a credible source of "some evolutionary scientists" making that assertion. [[User:AliG|AliG]] 12:05, 13 December 2009 (EDT)

== Error ==

There's an error about halfway through the article, inthe part about Dinosaurs possibly still living. it reads:
*
o Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag;

refs with no content must have a name

I thought the page might have loaded badly but refreshing the page doesn't change it. [[User:Bryankershaw|Bryankershaw]] 20:42, 30 July 2008)

: should be fixed now. thanks for pointing that out -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Evidence? ==

Much of your evidence functions on the basis that people have reported seeing it therefore it exists. This logic is flawed with examples such as Big Foot, the Lochness Monster and many other creatures of Urban Legend. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: Are you saying that claimed sightings of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tasmanian Tiger, and so on are to be totally ignored? Then why have various authorities spent considerable sums of money looking for those things (the Loch Ness monster, at least)? It's because claimed sightings, although certainly not conclusive ''proof'' by themselves, are valid ''evidence''.
: And no, the article does not say "people have reported seeing it therefore it exists" or anything amounting to that. Rather, it says that creationists have a range of arguments, one of which is that various sightings support that they have existed in human history.
: I will concede, however, that the arguments other than reported sightings are only briefly mentioned, compared to the sightings which are covered at some length.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)

----

== Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings ==

In one of the bullets, this page claims, "That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the Cretaceous strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times." Am I the only one that thinks this sounds ridiculous? It really should be taken out, although I am worried it will just be put back in. [[User:MikeRi|MikeRi]] 17:11, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

*This is something relating to Young Earth Creationism, Mike. Since all I know of it is from my exposure to it here, I don't involve myself with such issues. I would recommend you curtail your involvement with such issues here at CP, rather than be judgmental about something you are not expert on, however. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:19, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

*I agree with Mike, we should take out that out the part about Dinosaurs still being around. There's no evidence to support that Dinosaurs have not gone extinct, none from the Bible or any other Conservative doctrine. And TK you didn't have to be so offensive, in fact it's commonly believed that Dinosaurs are in fact extinct, and there's no expert that would say that they are not. Please restrict your involvement on an issue that you have no knowledge of. From your fellow Conservative.--[[User:CraigR|CraigR]] 21:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

== Argument about relative abundance of marine and terrestrial fossils ==

I have removed the argument that human and dinosaur fossils are not found together because most fossils are marine and we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all. This is EXACTLY THE SAME argument used by scientists to explain gaps in the sequence of human evolution, and the obvious danger from the creationist point of view is that after accepting this argument to explain the lack of human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, scientists are going to demand that it's also accepted to explain the absence of ape/human transitions. --[[User:Voiceoftruth2006|Voiceoftruth2006]] 10:36, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Popular Culture Re-Work ==

Removed prior (terrible) info and added a framework to start building up that section again with better information. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:22, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Dinosaur

2011-06-30T02:21:22Z

HarabecW: /* In Popular Culture */

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosuars===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
** Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actua very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
*Some believe the [[Loch Ness Monster]] to be a [[Plesiosaur]].

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
Creation science shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref> <ref> Find the full quote on [http://books.google.com/books?id=mAIjnLp6r_MC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Ernst+Mayr+1942+%22It+must+be+admitted,+however,+that+it+is+a+considerable+strain+on+one%27s+credulity+to+assume%22&source=bl&ots=TRDzBtumPF&sig=XwvnT327A9sn3Uvs0RLOaQNo5Zo&hl=en&ei=P6H6Te37LMSwhAf03fimAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false], starting from line 6. </ref> }}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|251px|right|There is excellent evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. During a visit to the [[Creation Museum]], the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO] See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results,{{citation needed}} and therefore reject this argument.

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
Dinosaurs have been a fixture of popular culture since their discovery. It is theorized that some of the myths of fantastical creatures stem from the accidental discovery of dinosaur fossils. More recently, dinosaurs have featured in popular stories including books, movies, television, video games, even music.

Dinosaurs were introduced to a wide modern audience when movies like the Jurassic Park series were released.

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Talk:Amenhotep IV

2011-06-29T03:02:04Z

HarabecW: Created page with "Cleaned up the article, removed weasel words --~~~~"

Cleaned up the article, removed weasel words --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 23:02, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Amenhotep IV

2011-06-29T03:01:49Z

HarabecW:

'''Amenhotep IV''', or '''Akhenaten''' (sometimes written as '''Ikhnaton'''), was [[Pharaoh]] of [[Egypt]] from 1353 - 1336 [[B.C.]] as part of the 18th Dynasty. He is famous for rejecting the traditional [[pagan]] gods of Egypt in favor of the sun, which he called [[Aton]]. He changed the capital from [[Thebes]] to Akhetaton (modern [[Amarna]]) to escape the influence of the priests of [[Ra]].

Statues of him show an artistic form new in Egypt, including various deformities which have led some scholars to conclude he had [[Marfan's syndrome]] or [[Frolich’s syndrome]]. However, various courtiers were also depicted similarly.<ref name="AIG">John Ashton & David Down. ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/utp/akhenaten-and-nefertiti-the-beautiful Unwrapping the Pharaohs, chapter 21]'''</ref>

The mysterious disappearance of his wife [[Nefertiti]] from the historical record has led scholars to many speculations, ranging from her usurping power to Akhenaten's banishing her.

He was assassinated, leading to the eventual reign of his famous boy-king nephew, Tutankhaton, renamed by the priests as [[Tutankhamun]], or "King Tut". His [[monotheism]] did not survive his reign. After his death, Egypt went back to the former [[polytheistic]] religion, and the royal priests regained their power.

== Akhenaten and Moses ==
The similarities between Akhenaten's monotheism and the monotheism described in the [[Pentateuch]] has led some historians to speculate about correlations between Akhenaten and Moses. Akhenaten's religion is thought to have been the first historical example of monotheistic religious belief to arise.

[[Sigmund Freud]] proposed that Moses was Ikhnaton's priest, and that the [[Exodus]] happened soon after the pharaoh's death<ref>[[Moses And Monotheism]], by Freud; see chapter "If Moses was an egyptian" at [http://www.archive.org/stream/mosesandmonothei032233mbp/mosesandmonothei032233mbp_djvu.txt www.archive.org]</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Pharaohs]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-06-28T22:46:37Z

HarabecW: /* This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself */

Do we want these 15 questions answered? I can answer some of them right here --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:27, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

I'll answer some now, I may not be able to get to all of them right now.

1. How did life originate?
Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, it deals only with it's diversity. The dictionary definition of evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

2. How did the DNA code originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

3. How could mutations create huge volumes of information in living things?
What is "information" in this context? This is never defined.

4. Why is natural selection taught as‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
Natural selection is the mechanism that works with speciation to produce an effect we call evolution.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
Because we can see many examples of things we know and can see were designed naturally but look like they should have been designed by human hands. The snowflake is a prime example; it appears extremely complex and designed however we know snowflakes are formed via natural processes. Living things also dont appear designed, at least not designed by anyone with any sense. The human body has some quite complex features but if taken as a whole, it's incredibly poorly thought out.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

8. How did sex originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

9. Why are the countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
Simply, they arent. We have BOATLOADS of fossils and scientists have spent a great deal of time arguing just were in the evolutionary spectrum many of them fit. Fossils themselves are uncommon simply because the conditions necessary to form them are rare, but we have an incredibly diverse fossil record already (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/)

10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
Evolution has not changed "worms into humans." These organisms havent changed because they have had very little evolutionary pressure to do so, they are very well adapted to their environment.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
It didnt, humans did. These are names we have given to things that help us reinforce our social groups, one of the key reasons humans have become dominant.

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ storytelling tolerated?
It isnt. If you can demonstrate another theory that explains what evolution explains in a better way with more data, prepare a place on your mantle for a Nobel. Science encourages informed dissent.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
There are far too many to list here, most of our modern understanding of biochemistry, genetics, and large parts of our medical science rest on evolution being factual; if it werent, these sciences simply wouldnt work.

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?
Evolution is not a theory about history, it is an on-going biological process.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Evolution is not a religious idea.
--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 20:13, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

:Several of your arguments are critically flawed.
:1. Because life was divinely created, even if evolution did occur, it would be affected by the divine grace of God, and not just random chance.
::Can you demonstrate that life was divinely created? Additionally, no one has claimed that random chance guides evolution.

:3. Information is basically stored knowledge, such as God storing the exact series of proteins needed for an organism to survive as DNA.
::You're talking about instincts, right?

:4. Because of natural selection, specialization could never occur, as hypothetical "transitional animals" could never out compete a specialized animal. Thus, the number of species should only decrease as time goes on.
::You misunderstand what speciation is. If you have two groups of the same animal that become separated by some sort of barrier, they will become genetically different as time goes on via genetic drift. Once enough time goes by, those two species will no longer be able to reproduce together because their genes are too different. It's not a question of out-competing one animal, it's a question of adapting to different evolutionary pressures.

:6. A snowflake is not a self-replicating series of biochemical reactions, so it is not an accurate comparison. The human body contains no vestigial organs, even organs previously though of as "useless" have been discovered to have important functions. The human body no redundancy, unless said redundancy is extremely important or advantageous for survival, such as having two eyes or two lungs. random chance could never produce such a perfect system, the only logical explanation is that there was some kind of divine plan for us.
::The human body is FAR from perfect and we have many vestigial features, one example being the goosebump response. In other animals, this response makes the hairs on their bodies stand up when frightened or cold to make them appear larger or trap a thin layer of insulated air. We humans do the same thing, however we do not have enough body hair to make it work as it does in other animals and serves no other purpose. Having two eyes is not an example of redundancy, it's an example of binocular vision which is what helps us perceive in three dimensions.

:9. Those fossils barely contain proof of an organism, let alone a true transitional species. We can't even be sure that they are legitimate fossils, and not just hoaxes propagated by the organizations that claim to study evolutionary "science".
::They show the bone structure and often the physical form of an dead organism, what more do you need? Except for a handful of fakes that the scientific community has expelled from the research, we have no indication that others were faked and I'd like to see your proof that current fossils are faked.

:10. Although a slight oversimplification, the "theory" of evolution does in fact state that over a series of generations, humans did evolve from worms. In addition, because evolution is caused by mutations, shouldn't millions of years of random mutations eventually lead to evolution? Even if only neutral or positive mutations remained in the gene pool, eventually, these ancient species should look at least slightly different.
::No, it does not. It states that we share a common (VERY distant) ancestor, not that we evolved from worms. To the other point, with very little evolutionary pressure to select for a specific set of mutations, the population changes very little because natural selection is not weeding out the weaker genes.

:11. And why do only humans have true morality and altruism? Chemistry has no emotions, and the expression of true, human empathy can only come from a god-fearing Christian.
::You dont know that only humans have morality, you assume that. And altruistic behavior has been demonstrated in many other species. In us, it's a way to reinforce the social group. I cant speak to the existence or not of a "nice" gene, but we are biologically programmed to need and want to be part of a group, it's what helped us survive our days before our dominance.

:12. Such as creation theory, which is more logical and explains the origin of life, among other things, much better.
::Creation theory is poorly supported by established science and rests mainly on supposition, anthropomorphism, and a lack of understanding in science.

:13. Those disciplines study phenomena God created in the first place. Nothing about medicine relies on evolution, even the study of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance occurs because of the transfer of already existing antibiotic resistance plasmids between bacteria.
::There is actually a paper written on the subject, it explains why medicine rests on evolution much better than I can http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050112

:14. It's impossible to preform experiments that test evolution, and any attempts have either failed or have been critically flawed. Thus, evolution is not operational science, or really science at all.
::It is not impossible to test at all, but it takes an extremely long time to test as you have to breed MANY successive generations such that they are genetically dissimilar from their parent species to the point where they can no longer breed. Most universities are not willing to fund a study that would last probably three or four human lifetimes, even with an animal that reproduces quickly, to get it's results and prove something the scientific community accepts as true from evidence gathered by other means.

:15. Evolution requires more faith than any religion I have ever encountered, and it is certainly taught religiously by the few teachers who haven't realized how critically flawed it is.
::This claim is repeated again and again but I have seen no indication of it nor has any been presented to me.

:Don't feel bad, if there is one thing evolutionists are good at or understand, its how to deceive and lie like any liberal. Critical thinking is important to any academic study, so you can't accept something as true unless you are willing to appreciate that you might not be learning the truth, as liberals are willing to lie for their own agenda. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:44, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
::I'm not interested in this descending into partisan bickering, so I'd thank you to not take the first step down that road and stick to objective discussion rather than name-calling.--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:38, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Why is there a campaign about this? It is a waste of time and money could go toward better things.[[User:Agalcal|Agalcal]] 17:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself ==

This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself.

For example:

1. Evolutionists can't have it both ways on the [[Origin of life]]. You can't spout on about [[Origin of life|chemical evolution]] from one side of your mouth, but on the other hand say it has nothing to do with evolution. Face it, evolution is a religion/philosophy. It is not science.
:Evolution explains the diversity of life, it DOES NOT NOR HAS IT EVER purported to explain how biological life began.

2. I see a noticeable lack of footnotes and/or support for your contentions. But even if you had footnotes and/or "information", you would probably link to or provide junk science "information". (talkorigins, etc.).
:To avoid flooding the page, yes I left footnotes off. What specifically would you like information for and I will provide it.

By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true.

I suggest rereading Conservapedia's [[evolution]] and [[atheism]] articles over and over until they sink in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:52, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:The Evolution article is seriously flawed and no, I'm not an Atheist. I actually do believe in Theistic Evolution, but I cant provide any verifiable evidence to support that idea so I dont advance it as fact. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:46, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Scientism

2011-06-27T21:45:57Z

HarabecW: Created page with "==Application for Deletion== I'm sorry but this is an atrociously bad article that should be deleted. --~~~~"

==Application for Deletion==
I'm sorry but this is an atrociously bad article that should be deleted. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 17:45, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Gay

2011-06-27T18:58:50Z

HarabecW: /* Open for cleanup? */ new section

Unlock this so we can edit it. [[User:Televangelist|Televangelist]] 13:33, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

This page should probably redirect to [[homosexual]] rather than being locked as a blank page.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it redirect to [[Happiness]]? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 05:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Gay people are full of or show high-spirited merriment, or are given to social pleasures often including dissipation: "led a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies"
:*"when hearts were young and gay""- Wordsworth
:* "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company"- Wordsworth

:Things that are brightly colored and showy may be described as gay: "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with gay plumage".

:I can't for the love of God figure why this page is redirected to an article about depraved perversity.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL. You people....

"gay" does not signify promiscuity..? {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

There is no single "gay lifestyle". There are gays who practice a promiscuous lifestyle, but there are substantially more who form healthy, committed, monogamous relationships. There are many, many heterosexuals who have affairs and lead immoral, promiscuous lives, but somehow this goes unnoticed. The belief that homosexuality is associated with a promiscuous lifestyle is no more than a stigma conferred upon them by a majority of straight people, who, refusing to admit that they are not entirely innocent, project their feelings of guilt and worthlessness on homosexuals. - awrootbeer1

== basic dictionary meaning? ==

Surely this article should say that the original basic dictionary meaning (and indeed the common meaning until reltively recently) was simply '''merry''' ("happily excited, keenly alive and exuberant, having or inducing high spirits," according to my little Merriam-Webster) - and that the word has only recently become synonymous with homosexual (having begun, if I read it right, to gather connotations of licentiousness sometime around the late 19th or early 20th century). Seems to me there is a danger of misleading readers of the article if this is not clearly explained. Any young person reading Shakespeare or 19th-century literature is likely to misunderstand the word "gay", and putting that possible misreading right would surely be a service that this encyclopedia should perform. And what's this stuff about "a crush". Not in my dictionary as a meaning of "gay", nor in my vocabulary! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:11, 17 February 2008 (EST)

"Immoral" is a subjective term , it would be better to say "though immoral by some "

==Info==
I wish to add information about gays in Korea, so please to unlock. Thank you.--[[User:Pakhyongshin|Pakhyongshin]] 23:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Why is this locked? I need to add the {{tl|homosexualityb}} template. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Open for cleanup? ==

This article is in very poor shape, there is some serious weasel words going on and some info that is flat out factually wrong. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:58, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Scrying

2011-06-27T18:56:48Z

HarabecW:

'''Scrying''' is seeing at a distance or across time. In the past it was considered an aspect of magic or sorcery. In modern times there has been research into [[paranormal]] or [[psychic]] abilities.

The object used for scrying could be a [[crystal ball]], mirror, water in a bowl, or any item that helps focus the users concentration.

The actual source of visions varies depending on the person's views and their religion.

[[Category:Occult]]

Talk:Magic

2011-06-27T18:55:32Z

HarabecW: Created page with "Cleaned up the article and added new information--~~~~"

Cleaned up the article and added new information--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:55, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Magic

2011-06-27T18:55:09Z

HarabecW:

'''Magic''' is the production of seemingly physically impossible occurrences that conflict with the natural laws by a person or people. The source of magic differs depending on the practitioner religious or philosophical beliefs.

Magic differs from a [[miracle]], which is a normally physically impossible act perpetrated by a god or by a person inspired by that god. Practitioners of magic are called varyingly ''magicians'', ''[[mage]]s'', ''[[sorcerer]]s'', ''[[witch]]es'', ''hexers'', ''[[shaman]]s'', ''witch doctors'', or ''[[wizard_(occult)|wizard]]s''.

Magic takes a myriad of forms depending on the goals and desires of the person using the magic. Many belief systems that make use of magic frown on using it for selfish or harmful ends, but historically magic was frequently used to advance a person's station or to harm others. Rituals which attempt in general to harm another person of a protected or superior social status were a common form of magic and still are in some traditional societies where more shamanistic beliefs are prevalent.

The term 'magic' derives from the name of the [[priest]]ly caste of the [[Iranian]] religion, ''Magoi'' in [[Greek]], which at the time of the Graeco-Persian wars in the fifth century BC were commonly believed in Greece to have practiced religious rituals hostile to Greek Freedom and victory in the wars of that time. The word ''Magoi'' (μαγοι) is the one used in the [[Gospel of Matthew]] to describe the three ''[[Wise Men]]'' who come to visit Jesus at his birth.

==Magicians in Primitive Cultures==

In many [[pagan]] or [[polytheistic]] cultures, each village or region would have their own magician or shaman who would act as a [[medium]] to their gods. In times of crisis, such as [[drought]], [[pestilence]] or other [[natural disasters]], the shaman would cast spells to appease the gods to end the torment. Shamans would also sell love potions and good fortune powders in exchange for what they needed in that society. They would occasionally act as [[psychic]]s. They would also be the religious figure presiding over important events such as [[birth]], [[marriage]] and [[death]].

The magician or shaman would typically live alone outside the village, in order to preserve the magical mystique of his powers. In return for his protection, the village would collectively care for him (frequently shamans were men) by bringing him food daily. As the shaman became older, he would usually choose a young boy to train as his successor.

==Use as a Pejorative Label==

The word "magic" has become somewhat synonymous with [[deception]]. As a result, by using the label "magic", a person can negatively characterize ritual practices or beliefs that he wishes to condemn. For example, the last Roman Emperor to practice the traditional Roman religion, [[Julian]], characterized the apostles [[Paul]] and [[Peter]] as the greatest magicians who ever lived, in an attempt to reduce the wonders of [[Christianity]] to mere wizardry. Because it invokes evil or false supernatural powers, Christians themselves are also mistrustful of magic; for example, in [[Dante's Inferno]], sorcerers are punished in the eighth circle of [[Hell]] - lower than [[tyrants]], [[usury|usurers]] and [[simony|simoniacs]]. Modern Christianity also rejects the idea of individual humans using magic as using a form of dark or evil power.

The term magic was commonly used to describe ritual practices practiced outside of the control of state authorities, so that, for example, practitioners of [[healing]] and [[exorcism]] in Classical Greek culture who were not associated with the temples of a Greek city state were commonly, as by [[Plato]], criticized as magicians.

==Modern Stage Magic==

[[Hypnotism]] and slight of hand are often used to entertain by [[magician|stage magicians]]. Entertainers such as [[Derren Brown]] use a combination of psychology, manipulation and illusion to suspend the disbelief of an otherwise cynical audience. Many of these tricks appear to be paranormal in nature to one who does not understand the trick. Most magicians follow a "code" that dictates that they shall not reveal the secrets inherent in the profession.

Some, most notably the Masked Magician, have broken the code in the past, either for personal gain or to stop other magicians relying on the same old tricks.

Practitioners of non-stage magic will sometimes add a "k" at the end of the word, creating "magick", to denote magic that is not done to entertain or magic that does not consist of visual trickery or sleight of hand.

[[Category:Religion]]
Magic exists in almost every religion on Earth in some form or another.

Aron Ra

2011-06-27T01:27:19Z

HarabecW:

'''AronRa''' is a popular [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] on [[YouTube]]. The popular Christian YouTube channel [[shockofgod]] issued [[Essay: The question atheists fear|a challenge to the atheist community]] to provide proof and evidence that proves atheism is accurate and correct.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIGs_cdj5Y</ref> AronRa failed to provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is accurate and correct.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIGs_cdj5Y</ref>

The popular [[Christianity|Christian]] YouTube video maker [[Shockofgod]] has also challenged [[Texas]] YouTube atheists AronRa and [[Matt Dillahunty]] to answer the 15 questions for [[evolution|evolutionists]] which are featured in [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I</ref> AronRa is unable to answer the questions.

In May of 2011, AronRa issued his own phylogeny challenge<ref>http://youtu.be/_r0zpk0lPFU</ref>. No one has yet responded or attempted to answer this challenge.

== See also ==
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Atheism and the internet]]
*[[Matt Dillahunty]] - The Atheist Experience Show
*[[Thunderf00t]]
*[[DonExodus2]]
*[[Essay: The question atheists fear|The question atheists fear]]
*[[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
*[[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] ('''large collection''' of comedy/satire concerning [[atheism]] and [[evolution]])

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plnwMNBm9z4 Creationist Ian Juby responds to AronRa's "8th Foundational falsehood of creationism"]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa AronRa] - YouTube channel
*[http://www.aronra.com/ AronRa website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category: Shockofgod]]

D&D

2011-06-27T01:16:27Z

HarabecW: Redirected page to Dungeons and Dragons

#REDIRECT [[Dungeons and Dragons]]

Tala al Badru Alayna

2011-06-27T01:14:35Z

HarabecW:

Tala‘ al-Badru ‘Alaynā (Arabic: طلع البدر علينا) is a traditional Islamic song known as the song that the citizens of Medina sung to the Prophet Muhammad upon his arrival at Medina after completing the Hijra in 622 CE. The song is currently over 1400 years old, and one of the oldest in the Islamic culture.

==Lyrics==
<big><big>طلع البدر علينا</big></big> 
''Tala‘a al-badru ‘alaynā'' 
'''Oh the white moon rose over us'''

<big><big>من ثنيات الوداع</big></big> 
''Min thanīyāti al-wadā‘'' 
'''From the valley of al-Wadā‘''' 
<big><big>وجب الشكر علينا</big></big> 
''Wajab al-shukru ‘alaynā'' 
'''And we owe it to show gratefulness'''

<big><big>ما دعى لله داع</big></big> 
''Mā da‘ā lillāhi dā‘'' 
'''Where the call is to Allah.''' 
<big><big>أيها المبعوث فينا</big></big> 
''Ayyuha al-mab‘ūthu fīnā'' 
'''Oh you who were raised among us'''

<big><big>جئت بالأمر المطاع</big></big> 
''Ji’ta bil-amri al-mutā‘'' 
'''Coming with a word to be obeyed'''

<big><big>جئت شرفت المدينة</big></big> 
''Ji’ta sharaft al-madīnah'' 
'''You have brought to this city nobleness'''

<big><big>مرحبا يا خير داع</big></big> 
''Marḥaban yā khayra dā‘'' 
'''Welcome best caller to God's way'''

Tala al Badru Alayna

2011-06-27T01:13:49Z

HarabecW: Created page with "Tala‘ al-Badru ‘Alaynā (Arabic: طلع البدر علينا) is a traditional Islamic song known as the song that the citizens of Medina sung to the Prophet Muhammad upon h..."

Tala‘ al-Badru ‘Alaynā (Arabic: طلع البدر علينا) is a traditional Islamic song known as the song that the citizens of Medina sung to the Prophet Muhammad upon his arrival at Medina after completing the Hijra in 622 CE. The song is currently over 1400 years old, and one of the oldest in the Islamic culture.

==Lyrics==
طلع البدر علينا
Tala‘a al-badru ‘alaynā
Oh the white moon rose over us

من ثنيات الوداع
Min thanīyāti al-wadā‘
From the valley of al-Wadā‘

وجب الشكر علينا
Wajab al-shukru ‘alaynā
And we owe it to show gratefulness

ما دعى لله داع
Mā da‘ā lillāhi dā‘
Where the call is to Allah.

أيها المبعوث فينا
Ayyuha al-mab‘ūthu fīnā
Oh you who were raised among us

جئت بالأمر المطاع
Ji’ta bil-amri al-mutā‘
Coming with a word to be obeyed

جئت شرفت المدينة
Ji’ta sharaft al-madīnah
You have brought to this city nobleness

مرحبا يا خير داع
Marḥaban yā khayra dā‘
Welcome best caller to God's way

Talk:Dragons

2011-06-27T01:10:28Z

HarabecW: Created page with "Edited out some weasel-words and added a little to the Science section --~~~~"

Edited out some weasel-words and added a little to the Science section --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 21:10, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Dragons

2011-06-27T01:09:59Z

HarabecW:

[[Image:Dragon.jpg|270px|right]]
'''Dragons''' are reptillian or snake-like creatures that share many characteristics with [[dinosaurs]] and may well be the same creatures. The ''World Book Encyclopedia'' declares that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons are usually evil and associated with [[Satan]], however, in the pagan belief systems of Asia, dragons tend to be regarded as divine creatures. Some creation scientists have postulated that the differing nature of dragons in the west and east may be because after the [[Great Flood]], predatory, carnivorous dinosaurs tended to migrate westward, whereas large, plant-eating dinosaurs tended to migrate east from [[Mt. Ararat]]. The folk memories of sea serpents such as the [[Loch Ness monster]], Ogopogo, Gaasyendietha and Argont are likely inherited stories of encounters with [[dinosaur]]s.<ref>"In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish [[leviathan]] the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."(Isaiah 27:1) </ref> Some creation scientists have suggested that dragons, as dinosuars, died out around the end of the ice age.<ref>''Unlocking the secrets of creation'' by Dennis R. Peterson</ref><ref>''The Genesis Flood'' by John C. Whitcomb Jr.</ref> However, that can not account for later encounters with dragons. Nevertheless, dragons are now either extinct or extremely rare.

The ancient Greeks knew of dragons as evidenced in the [[Illiad]] and Philostratus described dragons in [[India]]. Dragon-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible in Job 26:13, Isaiah 27:1 and Genesis 1:21 where it is known as [[leviathan]]. Many Christian saints have also encountered dragons, particularly as dragon-slayers. The most famouse being Saint George but also Saint Mercurialis, the first bishop of the city of Forlì, Saint Julian of Le Mans, Saint Veran, Saint Crescentinus, Saint Margaret of Antioch, Saint Martha and Saint Leonard of Noblac.

==Dragons and Modern Science==
Modern [[science]] does not accept ancient accounts of seeing dragons, instead categorizing dragons as mythical, being loosely based on creatures such as [[snake]]s. This has been contested on the basis that snakes do not have legs like dragons, nor do they grow nearly as large as dragons.

Modern psychology and paleontology offers us one explanation; the features of the majority of dragons are a chimeric combination of several different types of animals that prehistoric man had to fear. Birds of prey, big cats, and large reptiles being among man's chief competitors in prehistoric times, it is theorized that the dragon was an amalgamation of these animals as a remnant of instinctual memories.

==In Popular Culture==
Dragons are popular in science fiction movies and fantasy role playing games, [[Dungeons and Dragons]] being an example.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

[[Category: Biblical Animals]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-06-25T02:38:10Z

HarabecW:

Talk:Bhopal disaster

2011-06-24T18:04:51Z

HarabecW: Created page with "Added initial info, more to come --~~~~"

Added initial info, more to come --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Bhopal disaster

2011-06-24T18:04:19Z

HarabecW: Created page with "The Bhopal disaster is the largest industrial accident in human history. On December 2nd and 3rd, a massive leak of methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals from a chemical plan..."

The Bhopal disaster is the largest industrial accident in human history. On December 2nd and 3rd, a massive leak of methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals from a chemical plant owned and run by the Union Carbide company resulted in the exposure of hundreds of thousands of people. The official death toll rests at 3,787 <ref>http://www.mp.gov.in/bgtrrdmp/relief.htm</ref> however data collected by outside agencies have put the death toll from gas exposure at the time of the event and in the time following at closer to 8,000 people. A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries <ref>http://www.first14.com/bhopal-gas-tragedy-92-injuries-termed-minor-822.html</ref>.

Civil and criminal cases are pending in the United States District Court, Manhattan and the District Court of Bhopal, India, involving Union Carbide and Union Carbide India Limited employees, as well as prosecution of Warren Anderson, who was acting CEO of Union Carbide at the time of the disaster<ref>http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/company-defends-chief-in-bhopal-disaster/</ref>. In June 2010, seven ex-employees, including the former chairman of Union Carbide India, were convicted in Bhopal of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of about $2,000 each, the maximum punishment allowed by law. An eighth former employee was also convicted, but died before judgment was passed<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8725140.stm</ref>.

==The Leak==
In November 1984, most of the safety systems were not functioning. Tank 610 contained 42 tons of methyl isocyanate, much more than safety rules allowed.<ref>Eckerman (2004)</ref> During gas emission, a large amount of water entered tank 610. A runaway reaction started, which was accelerated by contaminants, high temperatures and other factors. The reaction generated a major increase in the temperature inside the tank to over 400 °F. This forced the emergency venting of pressure from the methyl isocyanate holding tank, releasing a large volume of toxic gases. It is known that workers cleaned pipelines with water and were not told by the supervisor to add a special tool to prevent water from backing up into other areas of the system. Because of this, and the bad maintenance, the workers consider it possible for water to have accidentally entered the methyl isocyanate tank.<ref>Eckerman (2004)</ref>

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-06-24T00:13:36Z

HarabecW:

Talk:Michele Bachmann

2011-06-23T01:26:13Z

HarabecW:

== Why isn't this mentioned? ==

She specifically said that "John Quincy Adams would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country." To be fair, John Quincy Adams was strongly on the side of the abolitionists, but he had nothing to do with the eradication of slavery. This is something people should know about someone who could become our next president. {{unsigned|Esmith543}}

:We must rush to put misspoken statements by a conservative in this encyclopedia? Meanwhile Egypt burns and our president is likely playing basketball.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:25, 30 January 2011 (EST)

::Esmith543, did Michelle Bachmann say that understanding or preventing abortion was above her paygrade? Did she say to Hispanics of the need to punish their enemies? Did she tell a certain plumber that the wealth he would create would be taken away and spread around as she saw fit? Did she invent global warming? Does she stand for the National Anthem with her hands at her side? Or should we merely ignore all of that if they are done by a ''Democrat?'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:59, 30 January 2011 (EST)

@JpattIt: It was not a misspoken statement, she said in the same press conference that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to write slavery out of the Constitution. What the underlying theme of what I was saying is that there's going to be nothing negative about a Tea Party icon on Conservapedia, even though it purports to be "The Trustowrthy Encyclopedia". Regarding Egypt, it's mentioned on the side in the top news, but I can find no other mention of riots anywhere. Also, though I am not an Obama supporter at all, he has not been playing basketball. He has come out and said that the Egyptian people are right in asserting themselves, and has communicated with Mubarak himself about what he plans to do.

@Karajou: Whoever said that understanding or preventing abortion was above her paygrade should be mentioned on Conservapedia as having said that. It's just a guess, but whoever said that has been quoted as saying that on here. It should also be mentioned on the page of whoever said that Hispanics should punish their enemies. Regarding quotes like that, however, on Rush Limbaugh's page, he is not quoted as saying ""I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus--living fossils--so we we'll never forget what these people stood for.". Glenn Beck is not quoted as saying "shoot them in the head", regarding liberals. While I disagree with liberals, I do not think that they should be shot, and I also believe that standards must be applied evenly, if we're going to quote whoever told Hispanics to punish their enemies, we should quote Limbaugh and Beck as saying what I've just quoted. Who told a certain plumber that their wealth would be taken and spread around? That should also be mentioned. No one "invented" global warming. Climate change is an observable phenomenon, and if you'd like to debate that, I'd be more than happy to. Standing with your hands at your side for the National Anthem does not matter. If we're going to judge politicians for that, we should also judge them if they wear American flag pins on their suits. During the presidential debates, Obama wore one, while McCain did not. No, none of those issues, except for the last one, should be ignored, standards must be applied evenly. If Harry Reid were quoted as saying that John Quincy Adams abolished slavery, I would be insisting that that be mentioned too.

::Maybe you are under the impression that we are fair and balanced? Let me inform you, that is a news slogan and not a conservative principle. You have nothing but disdain for conservatives and you think you are superior to conservatives. You'll show us, ha, please go back to Wikipedia where you'll be accepted with open arms. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:04, 30 January 2011 (EST)

::By using the word "whoever" you are attempting to cast doubt on the above statements, as if they were never said by Obama at all, yet here you sit demanding we put a more negative light on conservatives who oppose him and his policies. It's not going to work, ESmith. Please push your propaganda somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:19, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Shouldnt it also be mentioned her advocating that the US remove itself from the global economy and that nuking Iran should be an option? --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 21:26, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Security guard

2011-06-23T01:20:22Z

HarabecW:

A '''security guard''' is a privately-employed worker who guards premises against [[criminal]]s. Most security guards do not have special powers of arrest or detainment and are often under strict orders to notify law enforcement rather than confront law breakers in a problem situation.

Security guards can be directly employed by the [[company]] whose premises they protect, or can work for specialist security companies who hire out their services.
[[Category:Crime]]

Talk:Video games

2011-06-22T17:38:32Z

HarabecW: /* Subliminal messages */

Alright... The source given at the end of the first paragraph is, honestly, useless. It doesn't prove any claim made in the paragraph, let alone the last sentence, and some of the stuff given there sounds absolutely ludicrious. 124 incidents of violence in 10 minutes? Unless you're counting every punch as an incident, that's incredibly high...

Anyway. Under normal circumstances I'd simply delete the reference and replace it with a citation needed tag, but given that I'm coming fresh of a banning for misinterpreting instructions, I leave it to you to decide whether or not to remove a source that really adds nothing to the article. Cheers. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Alright. Should nobody post a response to this in the next... Ehh, few hours, I'm going to replace that source with a fact tag. Reason: Source is irrelevant to that section of the article. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)

==Final Fantasy==
Oh dang. I just noticed the what the previous edits said about the series. It's about purging evil in a make believe world! Narnia is almost the same. (both have magic/occult themes!)

I've been playing the series for a while, what homosexuality has there been besides Kefka, the arguable transvestite, from FFVI? And transvestism?! So what if Cloud was needed to infiltrate an area via "en femme"? It's a short section of the game and it was a pixelated mess.

Sexuality, let me think (my memory is half good on gaming). VI, nope. VII, nope (Tifa was "top-heavy"). VIII, didn't play. IX, nope. X, underwater make-out scene and Lulu's attire is iffy. X-2, that massage mini-game freaked me out and their attire. XI, didn't play due to online. XII, still playing and the only dispute are the Vieras' attire. Undercover cops in prostitution have just as much sexuality, but it's a necessary good, no?

Suicide... not really (from my experience). Homicide, very much so. Sephiroth killed Aerith, so Cloud killed Sephiroth. The only time I can think of was when Tidus (FFX) jumped off the Fahrenheit at the end, but he was just an apparition anyway. Also, it's not like it glorifying it either.

Religion. FFXII, the villains defy "the gods/fates". What do they get? Most are burned up by their manufactured idols ("manufacted nethicite") while the others are destroyed by Ashelia and the crew. Gabranth also comes to see the errors of his ways and joins the final fight for good against his superior, Vayne. Gabranth was saved in one way or another. Ruling out the villains of Final Fantasy, there hasn't been--if my memory serves correct--a defiance/negativity towards religion... except maybe the false religion of Yevon, which said that a summoner should die for their people to rid the world of pain for 3 years, "Sin". FFX was about defeating "Sin" and the false gods.
I think I am done with my ranting for today. I would like to see some counter-points though. +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 22:18, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Many characters are unnecessarily sexualized (specially on concept art), just look at FFX-2. There's also a few sexual references here and there. (Though its not as bad as other games.) Also, Faris and Kuja are definitely transvestives.
:There's also plenty of suicide in FFVI, with at least two of your main characters practicing it. There's also Dyne in FFVII committing it.
:And if Final Fantasy Tactics wasn't a subtle attempt at subversion against Christianity, I don't know what it is. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::it isn't a subtle attempt at subverting christianity, it was a successful attempt to make money by creating a video game that took place in a fantasy world. (and as for the other things i have no idea cause i dont play FF, although their are other games with more violence and sexuallity, try picking on gta, that will be easier)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, yes, but more specifically it was a successful attempt to make money by creation a video game that took place in a fantasy world were Christianity is basically evil. I'll eventually get to work on the gta articles though. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:FFX-2 was Square's only first attempt to make an actual sequel. With the name that sequel brings it immediately brings less sales. How to counteract that? Scanty clothing! It's about making money. I preferred to use a party of 2 white mages and one dark knight (most amount of clothing), with the exception of using special dress-spheres when necessary (Riku's and Paine's special form were fully clothed). Gunner, hot pants and side skirt. Gun Mage, side skirt and midriff. Alchemist, nothing revealing. Warrior, bike shorts(?) at least. Dark Knight, nothing. Samurai, tube top Riku. Berserker, major problem. Songstress, miniskirt balanced with really up high boots/stockings. Black Mage, mix samurai with songstress format. White Mage, nothing. Lady Luck, problem. Mascot, definitely nothing wrong. Trainer, same top as Ashelia from FFXII--reveals top 1/3 of breasts. Actually useful dress-spheres: Berserker, White Mage, Lady Luck (if your timing is correct), Warrior, Songstress (if you give it time), and the special spheres.
:Weren't Kuja and Zidane both genderless genomes? How can a mechanically engineered, soulless being be a transvestite? They were containers for the souls of Terra. Souls have gender/sex. True nature, a purified version of the body/container God made for us to use. If you have no soul, and you're just a container, then you have no true nature/gender. Kuja absorbed a plethora of souls of the Terrans... woman, child, man. Wouldn't that make "him" multi-gendered?
:And.. I never played FF Tactics. I've played Mystic Quest, FFIII (JP), FFVI, FFVII, FFIX, FFX (best game ever! - spent 300 hours on it, 250 on one file), FFX-2 (just wanted to see how a sequel would be and what happened to Tidus), FFXII (still playing, good vocabulary too). +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, I don't doubt the sexualizing of women in the series (not just FFX-2) was made in an effort to increase sales for the games (I would even say it applies to other themes not suitable for children such as profanity), however, that doesn't make it right or more appropriate.

::Its true that Kuja is a genome, but they still have male bodies and are treated essentially like men in the game, in fact, you don't even get to know they aren't really human until nearly the end of the game. Also, even taking these technicalities in account, Faris (from FFV) is still transvestite. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 16:44, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::They also kind of had to assign a gender. You couldn't go a whole referring to the main antagonist as "it", "Kuja" or "zhe" (zhe is what some "genderless" people like to be called).

:::I have never actually played more than 10 minutes of FFV before deciding it wasn't worth the effort of not spending time on Dofus (a French-based [[MMORPG]]). +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:58, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"He" works as a pronoun for both genders, doesn't it? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::For conservatives, it does. My friend--"genderless by choice", born a she, and liberal--wishes to be known as "zhe". Also, Society builds on being [[politically correct]]. Companies can't go about saying every unknown gendered person, Quina Quen (FFIX), is a he... that would offend too many potential consumers. Turning off potential consumers means a loss for future profits too. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I always thought that was an attempt at comedy actually. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 21:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sex in video games==
I found something useful in an older release of the Official Playstation Magazine about sex in videogames.

*1982 - Custer's Revenge (Atari 2600) - The goal of the game was to have sex with a Native American woman by dodging arrows.
*1990 - River City Ransom (Nintendo Entertainment System) - During a certain part of the game you can enter the sauna and it shows a naked man-butt.
*1996 - Tomb Raider (PS1) - Introduced polygon breasts to the gaming world.
*1998 - Metal Gear Solid (PS1) - "bathroom scene"
*2000 - Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore (PS2) - "perfected" polygon breasts by adding a realistic bouncing effect.
*2001 - Fear Effect 2: Retro Helix (PS1) - featured a lesbian couple for protagonists and several make-out scenes and partial nudity.
*2001 - Rez (PS2 - Japan) - A trance music game with optional USB vibrator accessory.
*2002 - BMX XXX (PS2) - nude characters and unlockable strip tease videos
*2004 - Leisure Suit Larry (PS2) - sex-themed minigames
*2004 - GTA: San Andreas (PS2) - "Hot Coffee"
*2005 - Playboy: The Mansion (PS2) - sexual scenes (kind of obvious)
*2005 - God of War (PS2) - topless female characters
*2005 - Pornographic UMDs (PSP - Japan)
<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

:Uh, buddy boy, that Lara Croft code was an April Fool's joke. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::Right, right. I forgot about that... I never was one for reading the entire article. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm adding a section about this if nobody minds. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::::God of War also included mini-games involving the lead character having sex with various women. While the acts were not pictured on screen (the in-game views were moved to different parts of the rooms), the player had to press various buttons at the right time and was treated to all the sounds of the sex acts. Additionally, during one of the sex scenes, the camera focused on a fountain statue of a urinating young boy which achieved an erection during the scene and "ejaculated." This filth can be viewed on YouTube if anyone (i.e. any liberal) doubts me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Link With Crime==
I think the statement in the first paragraph—I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag but took it out after some consideration— needs a link to some sort of study linking the two, or it needs to be reworded. I don't believe a singular incident can be evidence for this claim.
--[[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 11:59, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:It's clear that crimes have been ''associated'' with video games (the Columbine killers made custom levels in Doom that matched their school or some such), so the statement as written is true. The problem comes if you try to make a large scale correlation -- outside of anecdotal evidence, I don't think any evidence has ever been found. What few individual correlations I've heard, there's no evidence that the video game ''caused'' the violence. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Jack Thompson ==

Maybe we should remove the mention of Jack Thompson? He wasn't really a "target" of the media, and with his recent disbarrment, it might make a stronger case without mention of him. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 17:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:Alternatively, it makes his criticisms seem more like the goofiness that they realy are ;-) You are right about the "target" thing though; most "targeted" media coverage was from gamer sites and comics. If the main stream media had anything about him he wasn't really a "target". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

==People who actually...==
Can we get some people who actually play video games to edit this article? It's becoming biased based on what some editors see on TV.

Sure the popular games are the ones seen on TV or the ones that already have loyal fans, but there are still a majority of non-violent games out there.

Don't generalize because you don't understand. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:10, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

===Violence retort===
:And a funny retort to the violence "found" in gamers can be responded with:
::"Violence in gamers is not caused by video games themselves, but rather, the crappy movies that are "based" off of the video games." --VGCats & Beep Boop
[[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:19, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

== Targeted at teenagers? ==

It is not true that all video games are targeted at teenagers. It is true that video games are popular with teenagers, but they are also popular with people in their twenties. One could maybe make some useful link, but I think the first sentence should just be removed of its reference to teenagers. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 08:39, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Biased article ==

This is the most biased article I have ever seen. The opening sentence itself is sickening.

:So it looks like there is some controversy about this article. Is it possible to unlock it to editing? The vandals are surely gone now.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 18:25, 9 January 2010 (EST)

::I don't know about vandals, but I'd like to see this unlocked... I think that at the moment, the article could use a bit of improvement. The first paragraph says some things that make me frown. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 21:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::I completely agree. The first sentence of the article should describe what video games actually are, not make a blatant statement against them. It's appalling that this article is stuck in the state it's in currently. [[User:Piexing|Piexing]] 9:50, 6 March 2010 (EST)

::::Another study was just published documenting the harm. But I'll unlock the entry to see if you can improve it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Italics in faith section ==

In the section that discusses faith in video games, when it goes on to list some games that involve religious belief, various sections of the article are in italics. I'd imagine this is because the author wanted the video game titles to be in italics, but some parts of the text are, as well. Is there a reason for this? I was going to change it, but thought I'd ask first. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 00:36, 13 January 2011 (EST)

== The positive side of video games ==

As an avid gamer, I'm disappointed at the extreme bias in this article. While I agree that language and questionable content is totally unnecessary in video games, there are a tremendous amount of games that are absolutely harmless, beneficial, and even educational. For example, Sid Meier's Civilization series simulates world leadership in a video game. Players can learn strategy and a limited level of diplomacy (especially if played with other real players) and the "encyclopedia" found in game gives a very detailed background on units, world wonders, faction leaders, nations, and history in general.

Flight Simulators are also considered games, and they give the player a fairly accurate representation of flight with no negative content. These are only two examples of "good" games that are sitting on my shelf. I originally wrote about 4 more examples but I wanted to keep my explanation short. :)

I apologize for dragging on my explanation, but I feel very strongly that video games are represented incorrectly and can indeed contain as many opportunities for education as television or radio. Tomorrow I'll research the subject some more and gather some sources and add a section to the article about the beneficial (and largely unnoticed) video games that are on the market. --[[User:Kody|Kody]] 23:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

: You may try to improve it. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 23:27, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Cleanup and Tagging ==

I cleaned up some of the sections and added in {{Citation needed}} tags where necessary. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 19:36, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

==Dungeons and Dragons==

I'm not sure what to do when a page gets this long, but I went to the citation for the claim that Dungeons and Dragons contained Satanic imagery and I found no mention of the game on the page. I believe that the claim is false as it is just a GAME and I will be removing the statement unless someone can find real intentional game art that was meant to be Satanic. Thank you. [[User:AnnoyingConservative|AnnoyingConservative]]
:You've never actually... played the game have you. and its hard for real D&D to have much "art"--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 08:34, 2 June 2011 (EDT)
:Actually, yes. I have played the game. Nothing Satanic about it. If you have proof, I would like to see it [[User:AnnoyingConservative|AnnoyingConservative]]

== Subliminal messages ==

I came across something yesterday, when playing one of those silly "find the hidden item" games. I was quite surprised to see a number of items that should have been out of place in what is essentially a children's game.
I've loaded one screen-shot [http://picpaste.com/Mystery_P.I._-_The_Lottery_Ticket_1.jpg here] and circled the offending items: 2 bottles of wine, a cigarette, a cigar, a cigarette lighter, a bottle of beer and a full mug of beer. And this is just one screen of hundreds that you'll end up looking at while playing the game. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:54, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

:I dont really see that that is a children's game. Even if it is, so what? It's not encouraging children to smoke or drink. I'd hardly call that "subliminal messaging" --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 12:50, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::Ok, so maybe subliminal isn't the right word, but you don't have a problem with hiding things like this and then encouraging children to find them? And of ''course'' it's a children's game - do you think these games are marketed at adults? PS It's "don't" [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:59, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Then I'd say DONT be a grammar nazi. No, I really dont have a problem with it, why should I? --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 13:38, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Video games

2011-06-22T16:50:09Z

HarabecW: /* Subliminal messages */

Alright... The source given at the end of the first paragraph is, honestly, useless. It doesn't prove any claim made in the paragraph, let alone the last sentence, and some of the stuff given there sounds absolutely ludicrious. 124 incidents of violence in 10 minutes? Unless you're counting every punch as an incident, that's incredibly high...

Anyway. Under normal circumstances I'd simply delete the reference and replace it with a citation needed tag, but given that I'm coming fresh of a banning for misinterpreting instructions, I leave it to you to decide whether or not to remove a source that really adds nothing to the article. Cheers. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Alright. Should nobody post a response to this in the next... Ehh, few hours, I'm going to replace that source with a fact tag. Reason: Source is irrelevant to that section of the article. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)

==Final Fantasy==
Oh dang. I just noticed the what the previous edits said about the series. It's about purging evil in a make believe world! Narnia is almost the same. (both have magic/occult themes!)

I've been playing the series for a while, what homosexuality has there been besides Kefka, the arguable transvestite, from FFVI? And transvestism?! So what if Cloud was needed to infiltrate an area via "en femme"? It's a short section of the game and it was a pixelated mess.

Sexuality, let me think (my memory is half good on gaming). VI, nope. VII, nope (Tifa was "top-heavy"). VIII, didn't play. IX, nope. X, underwater make-out scene and Lulu's attire is iffy. X-2, that massage mini-game freaked me out and their attire. XI, didn't play due to online. XII, still playing and the only dispute are the Vieras' attire. Undercover cops in prostitution have just as much sexuality, but it's a necessary good, no?

Suicide... not really (from my experience). Homicide, very much so. Sephiroth killed Aerith, so Cloud killed Sephiroth. The only time I can think of was when Tidus (FFX) jumped off the Fahrenheit at the end, but he was just an apparition anyway. Also, it's not like it glorifying it either.

Religion. FFXII, the villains defy "the gods/fates". What do they get? Most are burned up by their manufactured idols ("manufacted nethicite") while the others are destroyed by Ashelia and the crew. Gabranth also comes to see the errors of his ways and joins the final fight for good against his superior, Vayne. Gabranth was saved in one way or another. Ruling out the villains of Final Fantasy, there hasn't been--if my memory serves correct--a defiance/negativity towards religion... except maybe the false religion of Yevon, which said that a summoner should die for their people to rid the world of pain for 3 years, "Sin". FFX was about defeating "Sin" and the false gods.
I think I am done with my ranting for today. I would like to see some counter-points though. +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 22:18, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Many characters are unnecessarily sexualized (specially on concept art), just look at FFX-2. There's also a few sexual references here and there. (Though its not as bad as other games.) Also, Faris and Kuja are definitely transvestives.
:There's also plenty of suicide in FFVI, with at least two of your main characters practicing it. There's also Dyne in FFVII committing it.
:And if Final Fantasy Tactics wasn't a subtle attempt at subversion against Christianity, I don't know what it is. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::it isn't a subtle attempt at subverting christianity, it was a successful attempt to make money by creating a video game that took place in a fantasy world. (and as for the other things i have no idea cause i dont play FF, although their are other games with more violence and sexuallity, try picking on gta, that will be easier)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, yes, but more specifically it was a successful attempt to make money by creation a video game that took place in a fantasy world were Christianity is basically evil. I'll eventually get to work on the gta articles though. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:FFX-2 was Square's only first attempt to make an actual sequel. With the name that sequel brings it immediately brings less sales. How to counteract that? Scanty clothing! It's about making money. I preferred to use a party of 2 white mages and one dark knight (most amount of clothing), with the exception of using special dress-spheres when necessary (Riku's and Paine's special form were fully clothed). Gunner, hot pants and side skirt. Gun Mage, side skirt and midriff. Alchemist, nothing revealing. Warrior, bike shorts(?) at least. Dark Knight, nothing. Samurai, tube top Riku. Berserker, major problem. Songstress, miniskirt balanced with really up high boots/stockings. Black Mage, mix samurai with songstress format. White Mage, nothing. Lady Luck, problem. Mascot, definitely nothing wrong. Trainer, same top as Ashelia from FFXII--reveals top 1/3 of breasts. Actually useful dress-spheres: Berserker, White Mage, Lady Luck (if your timing is correct), Warrior, Songstress (if you give it time), and the special spheres.
:Weren't Kuja and Zidane both genderless genomes? How can a mechanically engineered, soulless being be a transvestite? They were containers for the souls of Terra. Souls have gender/sex. True nature, a purified version of the body/container God made for us to use. If you have no soul, and you're just a container, then you have no true nature/gender. Kuja absorbed a plethora of souls of the Terrans... woman, child, man. Wouldn't that make "him" multi-gendered?
:And.. I never played FF Tactics. I've played Mystic Quest, FFIII (JP), FFVI, FFVII, FFIX, FFX (best game ever! - spent 300 hours on it, 250 on one file), FFX-2 (just wanted to see how a sequel would be and what happened to Tidus), FFXII (still playing, good vocabulary too). +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, I don't doubt the sexualizing of women in the series (not just FFX-2) was made in an effort to increase sales for the games (I would even say it applies to other themes not suitable for children such as profanity), however, that doesn't make it right or more appropriate.

::Its true that Kuja is a genome, but they still have male bodies and are treated essentially like men in the game, in fact, you don't even get to know they aren't really human until nearly the end of the game. Also, even taking these technicalities in account, Faris (from FFV) is still transvestite. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 16:44, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::They also kind of had to assign a gender. You couldn't go a whole referring to the main antagonist as "it", "Kuja" or "zhe" (zhe is what some "genderless" people like to be called).

:::I have never actually played more than 10 minutes of FFV before deciding it wasn't worth the effort of not spending time on Dofus (a French-based [[MMORPG]]). +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:58, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"He" works as a pronoun for both genders, doesn't it? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::For conservatives, it does. My friend--"genderless by choice", born a she, and liberal--wishes to be known as "zhe". Also, Society builds on being [[politically correct]]. Companies can't go about saying every unknown gendered person, Quina Quen (FFIX), is a he... that would offend too many potential consumers. Turning off potential consumers means a loss for future profits too. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I always thought that was an attempt at comedy actually. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 21:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sex in video games==
I found something useful in an older release of the Official Playstation Magazine about sex in videogames.

*1982 - Custer's Revenge (Atari 2600) - The goal of the game was to have sex with a Native American woman by dodging arrows.
*1990 - River City Ransom (Nintendo Entertainment System) - During a certain part of the game you can enter the sauna and it shows a naked man-butt.
*1996 - Tomb Raider (PS1) - Introduced polygon breasts to the gaming world.
*1998 - Metal Gear Solid (PS1) - "bathroom scene"
*2000 - Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore (PS2) - "perfected" polygon breasts by adding a realistic bouncing effect.
*2001 - Fear Effect 2: Retro Helix (PS1) - featured a lesbian couple for protagonists and several make-out scenes and partial nudity.
*2001 - Rez (PS2 - Japan) - A trance music game with optional USB vibrator accessory.
*2002 - BMX XXX (PS2) - nude characters and unlockable strip tease videos
*2004 - Leisure Suit Larry (PS2) - sex-themed minigames
*2004 - GTA: San Andreas (PS2) - "Hot Coffee"
*2005 - Playboy: The Mansion (PS2) - sexual scenes (kind of obvious)
*2005 - God of War (PS2) - topless female characters
*2005 - Pornographic UMDs (PSP - Japan)
<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

:Uh, buddy boy, that Lara Croft code was an April Fool's joke. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::Right, right. I forgot about that... I never was one for reading the entire article. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm adding a section about this if nobody minds. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::::God of War also included mini-games involving the lead character having sex with various women. While the acts were not pictured on screen (the in-game views were moved to different parts of the rooms), the player had to press various buttons at the right time and was treated to all the sounds of the sex acts. Additionally, during one of the sex scenes, the camera focused on a fountain statue of a urinating young boy which achieved an erection during the scene and "ejaculated." This filth can be viewed on YouTube if anyone (i.e. any liberal) doubts me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Link With Crime==
I think the statement in the first paragraph—I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag but took it out after some consideration— needs a link to some sort of study linking the two, or it needs to be reworded. I don't believe a singular incident can be evidence for this claim.
--[[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 11:59, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:It's clear that crimes have been ''associated'' with video games (the Columbine killers made custom levels in Doom that matched their school or some such), so the statement as written is true. The problem comes if you try to make a large scale correlation -- outside of anecdotal evidence, I don't think any evidence has ever been found. What few individual correlations I've heard, there's no evidence that the video game ''caused'' the violence. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Jack Thompson ==

Maybe we should remove the mention of Jack Thompson? He wasn't really a "target" of the media, and with his recent disbarrment, it might make a stronger case without mention of him. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 17:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:Alternatively, it makes his criticisms seem more like the goofiness that they realy are ;-) You are right about the "target" thing though; most "targeted" media coverage was from gamer sites and comics. If the main stream media had anything about him he wasn't really a "target". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

==People who actually...==
Can we get some people who actually play video games to edit this article? It's becoming biased based on what some editors see on TV.

Sure the popular games are the ones seen on TV or the ones that already have loyal fans, but there are still a majority of non-violent games out there.

Don't generalize because you don't understand. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:10, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

===Violence retort===
:And a funny retort to the violence "found" in gamers can be responded with:
::"Violence in gamers is not caused by video games themselves, but rather, the crappy movies that are "based" off of the video games." --VGCats & Beep Boop
[[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:19, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

== Targeted at teenagers? ==

It is not true that all video games are targeted at teenagers. It is true that video games are popular with teenagers, but they are also popular with people in their twenties. One could maybe make some useful link, but I think the first sentence should just be removed of its reference to teenagers. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 08:39, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Biased article ==

This is the most biased article I have ever seen. The opening sentence itself is sickening.

:So it looks like there is some controversy about this article. Is it possible to unlock it to editing? The vandals are surely gone now.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 18:25, 9 January 2010 (EST)

::I don't know about vandals, but I'd like to see this unlocked... I think that at the moment, the article could use a bit of improvement. The first paragraph says some things that make me frown. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 21:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::I completely agree. The first sentence of the article should describe what video games actually are, not make a blatant statement against them. It's appalling that this article is stuck in the state it's in currently. [[User:Piexing|Piexing]] 9:50, 6 March 2010 (EST)

::::Another study was just published documenting the harm. But I'll unlock the entry to see if you can improve it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Italics in faith section ==

In the section that discusses faith in video games, when it goes on to list some games that involve religious belief, various sections of the article are in italics. I'd imagine this is because the author wanted the video game titles to be in italics, but some parts of the text are, as well. Is there a reason for this? I was going to change it, but thought I'd ask first. [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 00:36, 13 January 2011 (EST)

== The positive side of video games ==

As an avid gamer, I'm disappointed at the extreme bias in this article. While I agree that language and questionable content is totally unnecessary in video games, there are a tremendous amount of games that are absolutely harmless, beneficial, and even educational. For example, Sid Meier's Civilization series simulates world leadership in a video game. Players can learn strategy and a limited level of diplomacy (especially if played with other real players) and the "encyclopedia" found in game gives a very detailed background on units, world wonders, faction leaders, nations, and history in general.

Flight Simulators are also considered games, and they give the player a fairly accurate representation of flight with no negative content. These are only two examples of "good" games that are sitting on my shelf. I originally wrote about 4 more examples but I wanted to keep my explanation short. :)

I apologize for dragging on my explanation, but I feel very strongly that video games are represented incorrectly and can indeed contain as many opportunities for education as television or radio. Tomorrow I'll research the subject some more and gather some sources and add a section to the article about the beneficial (and largely unnoticed) video games that are on the market. --[[User:Kody|Kody]] 23:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

: You may try to improve it. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 23:27, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Cleanup and Tagging ==

I cleaned up some of the sections and added in {{Citation needed}} tags where necessary. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 19:36, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

==Dungeons and Dragons==

I'm not sure what to do when a page gets this long, but I went to the citation for the claim that Dungeons and Dragons contained Satanic imagery and I found no mention of the game on the page. I believe that the claim is false as it is just a GAME and I will be removing the statement unless someone can find real intentional game art that was meant to be Satanic. Thank you. [[User:AnnoyingConservative|AnnoyingConservative]]
:You've never actually... played the game have you. and its hard for real D&D to have much "art"--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 08:34, 2 June 2011 (EDT)
:Actually, yes. I have played the game. Nothing Satanic about it. If you have proof, I would like to see it [[User:AnnoyingConservative|AnnoyingConservative]]

== Subliminal messages ==

I came across something yesterday, when playing one of those silly "find the hidden item" games. I was quite surprised to see a number of items that should have been out of place in what is essentially a children's game.
I've loaded one screen-shot [http://picpaste.com/Mystery_P.I._-_The_Lottery_Ticket_1.jpg here] and circled the offending items: 2 bottles of wine, a cigarette, a cigar, a cigarette lighter, a bottle of beer and a full mug of beer. And this is just one screen of hundreds that you'll end up looking at while playing the game. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:54, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

I dont really see that that is a children's game. Even if it is, so what? It's not encouraging children to smoke or drink. I'd hardly call that "subliminal messaging" --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 12:50, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-06-22T16:49:01Z

HarabecW: Illness and injury are not related to evolution

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]]. To date, no fossils of ''H. darwinicus orangutanishicus'' have been found.]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 73 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2.4%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# Evolution is internally inconsistent. It posits that all life must continuously improve, but on the other hand, it holds that some creatures, like the horseshoe crab, the alligator, the shark, and the [[coelacanth]],<ref>http://www.dinofish.com/</ref> have remained virtually unchanged for improbably long time periods.
# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.
# The bacterial flagellum has been proven to be useless when missing a single part of the mechanism. It stands to reason that this must have been created fully formed, and cannot have evolved from a simpler form. The term for this phenomenon is [[irreducible complexity]], and it can be seen in countless biological features.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, [[entropy]] (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own. According to [[Cornell University]] [[genetics|geneticist]] [[John C. Sanford]], not even the energy of the Sun, which might otherwise reduce entropy in a system not thermodynamically isolated such as the Earth, is capable of turning back the inexorable decline of our planet's collected genomes. <ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/]</ref> It seems reasonable to infer, then, that the [[End Times]] will come before or during the eventual collapse of the world's [[ecosystems]] that will come as a result of this irreversible deterioration.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
# [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful.
# The fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
# The manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
# Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
# Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemical substances in their blood that essentially act as an anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.
# The blood of tunicates such as the sea squirt is based on the rare element [[vanadium]] instead of the abundant [[iron]] used in other vertebrates, which would have required a complete re-tooling of its entire circulatory biochemistry <ref>http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/ascidiacea.html</ref>.
# Animals exist in isolated places without any plausible motivation or means for getting there, such as on remote islands or more than 1200 feet high on top of the vertical cliffs of [[Devils Tower]]. Even humans (though large and intelligent) were unable to ascend the peak until 1893, and required specialized climbing equipment.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
# The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Evolution should have removed HIV from the human race as we would have built an immunity to it, much like bacteria do to anti-biotics, yet we have not. In fact the continued existence of disease is proof against evolution as natural selection would have left only humans who were immune to them.
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.
# [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885</ref>
# PrP, the gene responsible for the protein implicated in causing prion diseases like [[Creutzfeldt-Jacob_Disease]], has ''no beneficial function''. If evolution were correct, this gene could not persist in the population, but would quickly be selected against.

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# "[T]he loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]], which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
# '''Where are the human ancestors?''' (That is, the ones that weren't [http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man frauds].)

===Paradoxical fossils===
# The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from high tree branches was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first.<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The long legs of the [[giraffe]]: if a random mutation led to long legs without a long neck or vice versa, the animal would be unable to survive.
# The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
# Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# Blood clotting is a unique process unlike any other in the body, without which the smallest cut could be life-threatening. Only a fully developed clotting system is functional and therefore could not have evolved through intermediate stages.
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.

===Uncategorized===
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|251px|right|There is excellent evidence that [[dinosaur]]s and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars</ref> During a visit to the [[Creation Museum]], the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO] See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
# There is excellent evidence indicating that [[dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars</ref>
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# [[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

Talk:Transhumanism

2011-06-21T21:36:12Z

HarabecW: /* Revival of the Article */ new section

Firstly, I admit that I need to brush up on which passages say what, but as far as I'm aware, it is stated in The Bible that God placed us on the Earth complete, and that we were made in his image. Surely, then, trying to 'improve' ourselves with disgusting implants in the brain and such is a violation of God's work and only moves us away from him, resulting in the exact opposite of what the movement intends. Would it be appropriate to put this in the article? I would have done it myself but I don't know exactly ''which'' passages support what I think (or even if I'm 100% correct, shamefully!)

You are absolutely right, God made man in His image. Transhumanism is just another garbage atheist philophy that denies the glory of God. I just edited the main article so that nobody is deceived by their propaganda. They'll lie and say that they just want to improve quality of life and have nothing against Christianity, while they dream of an atheist cyborg world state, where there is no individual rights, no free will, and certainly no mention of Christ. - joshwa
:Transhumanism may be garbage, bit after reading this I found that most of what is placed in here is either unsupported opinion or parody. It gets fixed or it gets removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:53, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

:ok sure but I have literally heard them talk about all of these things. I have never heard of a transhumanist who wasn't a radical or an atheist. I am not good at citations and stuff but I know what's right and what's wrong. God bless you. - joshwa
::And I've never heard of a transhumanist changing someone into a mindless cyborg. I believe such a scenario is called science fiction. If you're going to be writing here or anywhere on the web, or a high school or college paper, you're going to have to learn how to gather and properly use citations. Try reading this first ([[Conservapedia:Manual of Style]]). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:36, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

== Revival of the Article ==

Alright, I added in an initial burst of info. I'll have more up later so dont think this is the completed article. I still have a lot more to add --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 17:36, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Transhumanism

2011-06-21T21:35:14Z

HarabecW:

Transhumanism is, at it's core, is a philosophical idea that advances the idea of positively encouraging human development using advanced and emerging technologies. This can encompass life extension or clinical immortality, using technology to augment the human body to solve problems of physical or mental disability and to increase the capabilities of the human body, increasing the efficiency and comfort of human life, decreasing human impact on the environment, or achieving some form of enlightenment or connection with the technological world.

==History of Transhumanism==

==Transhumanist Thought==
Within Transhumanism, there are several lines of thought that focus on specific aspects of humanity;

*Abolitionism, an ideology based upon a perceived obligation to use technology to eliminate involuntary human suffering.
*Democratic Transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and Transhumanism.
*Extropianism, an early school of transhumanist thought characterized by a set of principles advocating a guided approach to human evolution. It should be noted that this is not the same as eugenics, Extropianism advocates assisting those with disabilities with advanced technology rather than the removal of individuals from the gene pool
*Transhumanistic Socialism, a combination of Transhuman ideas with Socialist thought, it involves using advanced and emerging technology to help create and sustain a Socialist society.
*Immortalism, a ideology based upon the belief that technological immortality is possible and desirable with the use of advanced medical technology.
*Libertarian Transhumanism, a political ideology combining Libertarianism and Transhumanism.
*Singularitarianism, an ideology based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.
*Technoecology, an ecological ideology based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth's environment, and that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should therefore be a priority.

While other forms of Transhumanism do exist, these represent many of the main currents in modern Transhumanist thought.

==The Singularity==
Almost all forms of Transhumanist thought encompass the idea of a technological singularity. A technological singularity works off of the fact that our current capability to process and access information, both technologically and as human beings, is increasing at an exponential rate. At some point in the future, we will reach a point of critical mass where the rate of intelligence growth, both biological and technological, becomes so fast that it becomes impossible to predict anything beyond that point. After that point, it is believed that many of the barriers we face when dealing with advanced technologies will be gone.

Transhumanists in general disagree as to what the singularity will look like or when it will occur, but it is a key component to almost all Transhuman thought.

==Transhumanist Ethics==
Transhumanist thinkers generally embrace the ideas of responsible use of technology, bioethics, social progressiveness, and open exchange of information. The idea of eugenics or forcible inclusion into a Transhuman society is universally shunned by Transhumanists because Transhumanism attempts to advance mankind and a system of eugenics or forced inclusion is not a positive or stabilizing force within humanity.

A strong idea within Transhumanism is freedom of information because it only through free access and exchange of information that many advanced and emerging technologies will have their greatest impact

==Posthuman==
The term "posthuman" refers to the human being after the singularity or in an extremely technologically advanced society. This has been described as the human body augmented by cybernetic and nanotechnology, the human body having evolved to a higher stage of evolution or existence, human beings in a collective consciousness, or even the human mind translated to digital data and downloaded into a digital system where humans have no bodies at all and exist purely in a digital format.

This aspect of Transhumanism is highly speculative and many Transhumanists disagree as to what exactly "posthuman" will look like, but all agree that it is a goal of Transhumanism.

==Practice==

==Arguments Against Transhumanism==

Transhumanism

2011-06-21T21:35:03Z

HarabecW: Created page with "Transhumanism is, at it's core, is a philosophical idea that advances the idea of positively encouraging human development using advanced and emerging technologies. This can enco..."

Transhumanism is, at it's core, is a philosophical idea that advances the idea of positively encouraging human development using advanced and emerging technologies. This can encompass life extension or clinical immortality, using technology to augment the human body to solve problems of physical or mental disability and to increase the capabilities of the human body, increasing the efficiency and comfort of human life, decreasing human impact on the environment, or achieving some form of enlightenment or connection with the technological world.

==History of Transhumanism

==Transhumanist Thought==
Within Transhumanism, there are several lines of thought that focus on specific aspects of humanity;

*Abolitionism, an ideology based upon a perceived obligation to use technology to eliminate involuntary human suffering.
*Democratic Transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and Transhumanism.
*Extropianism, an early school of transhumanist thought characterized by a set of principles advocating a guided approach to human evolution. It should be noted that this is not the same as eugenics, Extropianism advocates assisting those with disabilities with advanced technology rather than the removal of individuals from the gene pool
*Transhumanistic Socialism, a combination of Transhuman ideas with Socialist thought, it involves using advanced and emerging technology to help create and sustain a Socialist society.
*Immortalism, a ideology based upon the belief that technological immortality is possible and desirable with the use of advanced medical technology.
*Libertarian Transhumanism, a political ideology combining Libertarianism and Transhumanism.
*Singularitarianism, an ideology based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.
*Technoecology, an ecological ideology based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth's environment, and that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should therefore be a priority.

While other forms of Transhumanism do exist, these represent many of the main currents in modern Transhumanist thought.

==The Singularity==
Almost all forms of Transhumanist thought encompass the idea of a technological singularity. A technological singularity works off of the fact that our current capability to process and access information, both technologically and as human beings, is increasing at an exponential rate. At some point in the future, we will reach a point of critical mass where the rate of intelligence growth, both biological and technological, becomes so fast that it becomes impossible to predict anything beyond that point. After that point, it is believed that many of the barriers we face when dealing with advanced technologies will be gone.

Transhumanists in general disagree as to what the singularity will look like or when it will occur, but it is a key component to almost all Transhuman thought.

==Transhumanist Ethics==
Transhumanist thinkers generally embrace the ideas of responsible use of technology, bioethics, social progressiveness, and open exchange of information. The idea of eugenics or forcible inclusion into a Transhuman society is universally shunned by Transhumanists because Transhumanism attempts to advance mankind and a system of eugenics or forced inclusion is not a positive or stabilizing force within humanity.

A strong idea within Transhumanism is freedom of information because it only through free access and exchange of information that many advanced and emerging technologies will have their greatest impact

==Posthuman==
The term "posthuman" refers to the human being after the singularity or in an extremely technologically advanced society. This has been described as the human body augmented by cybernetic and nanotechnology, the human body having evolved to a higher stage of evolution or existence, human beings in a collective consciousness, or even the human mind translated to digital data and downloaded into a digital system where humans have no bodies at all and exist purely in a digital format.

This aspect of Transhumanism is highly speculative and many Transhumanists disagree as to what exactly "posthuman" will look like, but all agree that it is a goal of Transhumanism.

==Practice==

==Arguments Against Transhumanism==