Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Improvisation

2007-10-28T00:25:35Z

Hojimachong: eww

'''Improvisation''' is a when a performer is "making it up he/she goes along". In [[music]], one alters what is being played and deviates from the written music. This is done most often in [[jazz]]. In an ensemble, the [[saxaphone]], for example, might add [[trills]], extra notes that would complement the [[melody]] (called [[harmony]]), or even change the [[key]].

Musical improvisation originated from [[African American]] musicians in the 19th century. Most were not formally educated, and they didn't learn music theory. They would sing in church, and they didn't have music sheets written so they ''had'' to make it up. As long as it sounded good all together they went for it. Thus they became very talented and had a good musical ear.

[[Category:Music]]

Muhammad

2007-09-27T02:02:02Z

Hojimachong: rm honorifics - Christian encyclopedia, no?

== Life of Muhammad==
The Prophet Muhammad (A.D. 570-632) or Mohammed, was the founder of Islam. He began life as a wealthy tradesmen, one of the elite of his city of [[Mecca]]. He claimed to be privy to certain [[revelations]] in middle age, speaking of a need to abandon worship of the many gods who dominated Mecca's religion at the time, and worship the one God, [[Allah]].

These early revelations spoke of a need to return to the [[monotheism]] of [[Abraham]]; in this way, at an early age, Muhammad saw himself as reviving an ancient faith, a perceived correction to [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], and restoring his people to what he saw as their rightful position as the true founders and heirs of monotheism. In these revelations, submission to the will of God - [[Allah]] - was critical. Muhammad's fledgling religion continued to develop throughout his life, through periodic revelations often relating directly to events currently facing his new faith.

The faith caught on slowly, winning only a few converts in Mecca (the first being his wife, Khadija). In 622 A.D, under increased pressure and ostracism from elders in Mecca, Muhammad began the [[hijra]], an organized exodus of his followers from Mecca to the city of [[Medina]]. [[Muslims]] date the formation of their religion to the ''hijra'' itself, even beginning their dating system at this point.

At Medina, the new Muslims immediately adopted an aggressive stance, seeking to coexist with the [[Jews]] living in Medina on ''his'' terms. The encounter ended badly, though, with Muhammad dividing and conquering the Jewish groups in Medina, ordering the massacre of the [[Qurayza]] [[Jewish]] tribe, as they refused changing their [[religion]] to his submission, after (possibly) fabricating a cause to break what is called by modern historians the [[Compact of Medina]].<ref>Berkey, ''The Formation of Islam''</ref>

A controversial point of Muhammad's life was his marriage to [[Aisha bint Abi Bakr|Aisha]], daughter of [[Abu Bakr]], who was six years old at the time of marriage.<ref>''Sahih Bukhari'' 5:58:234</ref><ref>Sahih Muslim 8:3311</ref> The marriage was consumated when Aisha was nine.<ref> D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40</ref> The narratives describing her age at marriage as six are narrated by Aisha herself. Though Aisha was known to use numerical substitution in other hadith, such as in the hadith of Laylat Al-Qadr where she substituted 1 for 21 and 3 for 23, which is a common way of referencing numbers in Arabic when the base number is established. Some scholars argue that she could have been speaking in such numerical substitution when narrating the Hadith regarding her age at marriage, thus rendering 16 as 6 and 19 as 9.<ref>Hakim Niaz Ahmad, '' تحقیق عمرعا،شہ صدیقہ (Research on the age of Ayesha)'', Mashkoor Academy, [[Karachi]].</ref> There is additional disagreement over her age at marriage, and a number of Islamic scholars believe that Aisha was older at the time of marriage. However, it is worth noting that at the time, and for thousands of years before, and thousands of years after, early marriage of a girl to a powerful man was very common. Aisha reached puberty at the age of nine, which is when the marriage was consummated.<ref>495|525|58,495,10,66,675,15,76,735,45,66,870,15|-1|0</ref><ref>Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, ''[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Age_of_Aisha Age of Aisha]'', Al-Rahman Publishing Trust, [[Karachi]]</ref><ref>Maulana Muhammad Ali, ''The Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad'', p. 30, 1992, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat, ISBN 0-913321-19-2</ref>

== After Muhammad's Death ==

Muhammad's death at an early age caused the splintering of his religion into new sects, over the question of succession. The groups called themselves the [[Sunnis]] and the [[Shiite|Shi'as]]. Many attribute this split to the high degree to which authority was centered in the powerful character of Muhammad himself: without his powerful personality, the movement could not survive intact.<ref>Bernard Lewis, ''What Went Wrong''</ref>

The failure or splintering of movements built around a charismatic leader is a recurring sociological problem, often studied by psychologists, and referred to as the problem of the [[routinization of charisma]]. [[Christianity]] faced the same problem, and many attribute the conquest of this problem to the leadership of the apostle [[Paul]].<ref>Maximillian Weber, ''Theory of Social and Economic Organization,'' in the chapter "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization," see also Len Oakes, "Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities"</ref>.

In accordance with the Islamic [[hadith]], it is considered proper to add an honorary phrase of "Peace Be Upon Him (or PBUH)" or "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam (or SAW)".

==See Also==
*[[Islam]]
*[[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

== References ==

<references/>
Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades)

== Notes ==

HIR | Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayzah [http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm]

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Religious people]]

Liberal myths

2007-09-24T21:48:06Z

Hojimachong:

'''Liberal Myths''' are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a [[liberal]] belief system. They include:

*The claim of a [[population explosion]] (motivation: promote [[abortion]])
*The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous [[Christians]] look dumb)
*The claim that the [[Apostles]] were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb)
*The claim of [[extraterrestrial life]] (motivation: deny that man was created in [[God]]'s image)
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Anthropogenic [[Global Warming]].[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths]
*The claim that a fetus is not a living being with rights.

Please add to this list.

[[Category:Deceit]]

Liberal myths

2007-09-24T21:47:33Z

Hojimachong:

Pervez Musharraf

2007-09-16T16:10:44Z

Hojimachong: New page: '''Pervez Musharraf''' (b. August 11, 1943) is the current President of Pakistan, having seized power in a coup on October 12, 1999. He is considered a key ally of the [[United...

'''Pervez Musharraf''' (b. August 11, 1943) is the current [[President]] of [[Pakistan]], having seized power in a [[coup]] on October 12, 1999. He is considered a key ally of the [[United States]] in the fight against global [[terrorism]].

[[Category:Heads of state]]
[[Category:Pakistan]]

Michael Mukasey

2007-09-16T15:54:16Z

Hojimachong: wikifying

'''Micheal B. Mukasey''' (born 1941, Bronx, [[New York|NY]]) was a former federal district judge for the Southern District of [[New York]] after being nominated by [[Ronald Reagan]]. His tenure as judge, which he held the until 2006, was widely viewed favorably. Mukasey is rumored to be a leading candidate for the federal Attorney General position which was left vacant after the resignation of [[Alberto Gonzales]].<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/121rpxqa.asp</reF> He is a member of the Justice Advisory Committee of Giuliani's presidential campaign and his son is a law partner with Guiliani.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5850.html</ref> Many believe that he became the top candidate for the Attorney General position after Senate Democrats vowed to block the previous rumored front-running [[Ted Olson]].<ref>http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/09/15/possible-new-attorney-general/</ref>

[[Democrat]] senator [[Chuck Schumer]] has praised Mukasey past work and in 2003, he placed him on the acceptable "consensus" candidate list for the Supreme Court.<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/09/018472.php</ref>

Mukasey presided over thousands of cases, many of them high-stake affairs. In 1996, he presided over the trail of [[Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman]], the jihadist behind the [[1993 World Trade Center bombing]], and eleven co-defendants, who were convicted and received lengthy prison terms.<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY3MTM5ZDFjYTk2YTc3ZDliNzcyY2FkYjhlYTRmOWU=</ref> His work in this important trial earned praise from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated in a review of the trial,
<blockquote>
"The trial judge, the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, presided with extraordinary skill and patience, assuring fairness to the prosecution and to each defendant and helpfulness to the jury. His was an outstanding achievement in the face of challenges far beyond those normally endured by a trial judge."<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY3MTM5ZDFjYTk2YTc3ZDliNzcyY2FkYjhlYTRmOWU=</ref>
</blockquote>

Mukasey earned his bachelor’s degree at Columbia before graduating from Yale Law School in 1967. He left his law practice in 1988 for his appointed position as federal judge. In 2006, Mr. Mukasey announced that he was retiring to take a job at the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/washington/16attorney.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin</ref>
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mukasey, Michael}}
[[Category:Lawyers]]

Michael Mukasey

2007-09-16T15:49:10Z

Hojimachong: spelling and such

'''Micheal B. Mukasey''' (born 1941, Bronx, [[New York|NY]]) was a former federal district judge for the Southern District of [[New York]] after being nominated by [[Ronald Reagan]]. His tenure as judge, which he held the until 2006, was widely viewed favorably. Mukasey is rumored to be a leading candidate for the federal Attorney General position which was left vacant after the resignation of [[Alberto Gonzales]].<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/121rpxqa.asp</reF> He is a member of the Justice Advisory Committee of Giuliani's presidential campaign and his son is a law partner with Guiliani.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5850.html</ref>

[[Democrat]] senator [[Chuck Schumer]] has praised Mukasey past work and in 2003, he placed him on the acceptable "consensus" candidate list for the Supreme Court.<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/09/018472.php</ref>

Mukasey presided over thousands of cases, many of them high-stake affairs. In 1996, he presided over the trail of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, the jihadist behind the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and eleven co-defendants, who were convicted and received lengthy prison terms.<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY3MTM5ZDFjYTk2YTc3ZDliNzcyY2FkYjhlYTRmOWU=</ref> His work in this important trial earned praise from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated in a review of the trial,
<blockquote>
"The trial judge, the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, presided with extraordinary skill and patience, assuring fairness to the prosecution and to each defendant and helpfulness to the jury. His was an outstanding achievement in the face of challenges far beyond those normally endured by a trial judge."<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY3MTM5ZDFjYTk2YTc3ZDliNzcyY2FkYjhlYTRmOWU=</ref>
</blockquote>

Mukasey earned his bachelor’s degree at Columbia before graduating from Yale Law School in 1967. He left his law practice in 1988 for his appointed position as federal judge. In 2006, Mr. Mukasey announced that he was retiring to take a job at the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/washington/16attorney.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin</ref>
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mukasey, Michael}}
[[Category:Lawyers]]

American Football

2007-09-09T03:04:17Z

Hojimachong: /* Rules */

'''American Football''' (simply '''football''' in the U.S.) is a professional [[sport]] played predominantly in [[North America]]. The objective of the game is to score points by carrying the football into the opposing teams [[end zone]]. This can be done by running the ball past the end line (a running play), or passing the ball to a teammate inside the end zone (a passing play). Points can also be scored by kicking the ball between the goalposts at either end zone. Football is easily the most-viewed spectator sport in the [[United States]], far surpassing baseball.<ref>[http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Documents/NFL_all_about_SB_1-07.pdf Super Bowl XLI Viewership Report]</ref>

''For the sake of consistency, the sport being discussed will only be referred to as "football" for the rest of the article. Clarification will be given as needed.''

==Rules==
As with all popular sports, football has a well-codified set of rules. These are mostly to promote safe gameplay, prevent serious injuries, and keep the game fair.

===Field===
[[Image:AmericanFootballField.gif|thumb|right|300px|A standard football field (note the hash marks running horizontally down the field).]]
American football is played on a field that is 120 yards long by 53.33 yards wide. The last 10 yards of each end of the field are known as ''end zones''. The longer (120 yd) boundary lines are known as "sidelines", while the shorter (100 yd) boundary lines are known as "end lines". Two sets of ''hash marks'' run horizontally down the field, and every play starts with the ball on or between the hash marks. A player must carry the ball into (or catch a ball while within) the end zone in order to score a ''touchdown'', worth 6 points.

At the back of each end zone are two vertical "goal posts", standing 18.5 feet apart. These are connected by a crossbar approx. 10 feet from the ground. After a touchdown, the scoring team may attempt a Point After Touchdown (PAT), where a player attempts to kick the ball through the posts. If successful, the team gains an extra point. Additionally, a team may attempt a ''field goal'' at any time (usually on a 4th down), though this is rarely attempted if the distance from the goal posts is more than ~35 yards. If successful, this kick is worth three points, though the other team gets possession of the ball regardless of the outcome of the kick.

===Players===
Each team may have exactly 11 players on the field at any given time, meaning a total of 22 players will be present on the football field during a play. Players are required to wear certain grades of helmets, shoulder pads, thigh/hip pads, and knee pads while playing on the field.

===Advancing the Ball===
The team with possession of the ball (the ''offense'') is given four attempts (called ''[[Down (football)|downs]]'') to advance the ball 10 yards down the field. If the ball is moved at least ten yards during these four attempts, the offense is given a ''first down'', meaning that they have another four chances to move the ball 10 yards (the downs are cumulative; for example, if the offense moves the ball three yards on the first down and five yards on the second down, they only have to move it two yards over the next two downs to gain a first down) If the offense fails to move at least 10 yards over four plays, the opposing team is given possession of the ball.
[[Image:AmericanFootballPositions.png|thumb|right|300px|Typical offensive/defensive positions at the start of a play. The offensive positions are represented by blue circles, and the defensive positions are in red (note: click on the picture for a guide to position abbreviations).]]
The yard line on the field where the ball is located is known as the ''line of scrimmage''. The offensive players must line up on the line of scrimmage facing the opponents end zone, while the defense must be behind the line of scrimmage with their backs to their own end zone.

Every play begins with the teams facing each other on the line of scrimmage, and the players may move once the ball is ''snapped'' (removed from the ground) by the [[center (football)|center]]. The center usually snaps the ball between his legs to the [[quarterback]] (QB), who may take one of several courses of action;

*The quarterback may hand the ball off to a rusher (usually a [[fullback]], [[halfback]], or [[runningback]]), who will attempt to run the ball down the field as far as they can before being stopped by the defense.
*The quarterback may opt to throw the ball to a receiver (usually a [[wide receiver]] or [[tight end]]) who is already several yards down the field. Once the receiver catches the ball, he may continue to run until brought down by a defensive player. If the receiver does not catch the ball, it is called an ''incomplete pass''.
*The quarterback may spike the ball at the ground to stop the game clock, at the expense of a loss of a down.
*The quarterback may run the ball down the field himself; this option is usually unwise, as an injury to the QB can be destructive to an entire team for the whole season.

The play ends when the referee's whistle is blown. The whistle can be blown for several reasons;
*The ball carrier is tackled (his knee touches the ground) by members of the opposing team. The location of the ball when the carrier touches the ground is used to determine the amount of yards gained by the offense.
*A forward pass hits the ground or flies out of bounds before being touched. This is an ''incomplete pass''.
*The ball carrier steps ''out of bounds''.
*The offense carries the ball into the endzone, or kicks a field goal.

===Scoring===
[[Image:Fieldgoal.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A kicker attempts a field goal, as the defensive line jumps to block the ball.]]
There are three ways to score in football;
*A [[touchdown]] is scored when an offensive player runs the ball into or catches a pass in his opponent's end zone. Unlike Rugby, the ball does not need to be grounded to count as a touchdown ("try" in Rugby).
**After the touchdown, the scoring team may attempt a ''conversion''. The football is placed on the opposing teams 2-yard line, and the offense may either kick it between to goalposts (for an ''extra point'' or ''Point After Touchdown (PAT)''), or attempt to run or pass the ball into the endzone (a ''two-point conversion'').
*A [[Field Goal]] (FG) occurs when the offense kicks the football between the opposing teams goalposts. A successful field goal is worth three points. A field goal differs from a PAT in that the field goal may be attempted at any time when the offense has possession of the ball (though almost always on a fourth down), and that it is worth three points rather than one.
*A [[safety (football)|Safety]] occurs when a defensive player downs a ball carrier in the ball carriers ''own'' end zone. A safety is also awarded if the offense fumbles the ball out-of-bounds in their own end zone or have a punt blocked in their own end zone.

==Variations==
Because real American football involves potentially dangerous physical contact, primary-grade schoolkids across the country often play ''flag football'' (where pulling a flag off of the opponent represents a tackle) and ''touch football'' (where touching the opponent with both hands represents a tackle). Both of these variants usually omit the offensive and defensive lines, and impose a time limit - often 3 seconds - before linebackers can rush the QB.

==External Links==
*[http://www.nfl.com/history NFL - History and basics]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Articles needing expansion]]
[[Category:Sport]]
[[Category:Football]]

2007-09-08T23:44:43Z

Hojimachong: /* Rules */

American Football

2007-09-08T23:25:19Z

Hojimachong:

Talk:American Football

2007-09-08T21:43:49Z

Hojimachong:

The outline I think would be most useful for this article is similar to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Football Wikipedia's article]:
 
 
1 - Rules
 
1.1 - Field
 
1.2 - Players
 
1.3 - Advancing the ball
 
1.4 - Changing possession
 
1.5 - Scoring
 
1.6 - Kicking
 
1.7 - Penalties
 
2. - Players
 
2.1 - Offense
 
2.2 - Defense
 
2.3 - Special Teams
 
2.3.1 - Kickoff/Kick Return
 
2.3.2 - Punt/Punt Return
 
2.3.3 - PAT/Field Goal
 
2.3.4 - Onside Kick/"Hands" Team
 
3 - Strategy
 
3.1 - Offensive Strategy
 
3.2 - Defensive Strategy
 
3.3 - "Unique" Plays
 
4 - History
 
5 - References
 
 
Feel free to provide input, as I think this article needs to "blow up" in size and comprehensiveness. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 17:42, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:American Football

2007-09-08T21:42:53Z

2007-09-08T20:36:44Z

Hojimachong: I'm sure that is true, but it seems awfully out-of-place, isn't cited, and probably isn't notable.

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Osama Bin Laden''' is a Saudi Arabian millionaire and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful entrepreneur in the construction industry.

During the [[Clinton Administration]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for Bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998. </ref>, bin Laden issued two Declarations of War against the United States for the basing of troops in the Arabian Peninsula to defend against external aggression by [[Saddam Hussein]] and because of the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN economic sanctions.<ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm Bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> However, Clinton did not take the threat seriously, and did not make an effort to capture or kill Bin Laden. <ref> [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/] Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities</ref>

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

During the 1980s insurgency against the [[Soviet]] occupation of [[Afghanistan]] the [[Carter Administration]] initially directed help to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic militants such as the [[Taliban]]<ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0923-01.htm</ref>. Bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

In 1998, Bin Laden and [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]], then leader of the Egyptian terrorist group called the [[Islamic Brotherhood]], announced the joining of al Qaeda and the [[Islamic Brotherhood]] to form the ''World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders''<ref> http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir011003_1_n.shtml</ref>. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both Ben Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation the United States lunched cruise missiles, however, both terrorist leaders escaped.

Bin Laden is cited by the [[United States]] government as the most wanted terrorist. He remains at large to this day.

== See also ==

* [[Yasser Arafat]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category: al-Qaeda]]

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-09-08T17:43:59Z

Hojimachong: /* Herbivorous? */

This article is in desperate need of more references. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:And desperate need of work. This article is lacking in any real information and cites questionable sources. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus '''REX'''--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually it is ''Tyrannosaurus rex''. The genus name is capitalized the species name is not. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::When I posted that the article was just entitled Tyrannasaurus, with no rex at the end. I changed it to capital just for the title convention of having words capitalized.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Reverts? ==

Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.
:Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected==

I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has '''bigwords''' in it. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547| Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid.] --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: [http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html SCAVENGER!]--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.[[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you understand the situation there, CF, they don't want "facts" they want '''"their facts"'''. And BTW, there CW, jackals are carnivores '''and''' scavengers. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It actually doesn't say that Jack Horner believed they were scavengers, it says he revitalized the theory that they may have been, but it was never a major research focus for him. And even if he did believe it, that's still just one person. What do the majority of paleontologists think? Especially the ones who specialize in T-Rex. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Horner wrote several articles on the subject. Look it up.

Horner, J.R., (1994). Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 7: 157-164.

Stop speaking without knowing what your talking about.

And by the way, the jackel has strong front legs, reliable teeth and is fast, so it can be a predator.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why not give those sources then? Instead of one which didn't support your argument at all? Either way, there's more paleontologists with other opinions. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. This is true. The jackal can be a predator, that also scavenges. Do you think that "scavenger" and "herbivore" are synonyms? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The line "" Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."" is pure speculation or an over active imagination. It is not a fact that can be verified. Besides that, crocodiles have existed since or before dinosaurs (I'm not an expert), which as we know are currently carnivores.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:How can you be sure of that? Stop adding ''your'' facts and look at the actual facts. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::@Scorpionman - We can look at fossil records, sediment layers, carbon dating which all point to the same fact that crocodiles have existed for a very long time. They are not ''my'' facts but the accepted facts of the vast majority of the worlds zoologists. I.E. they are the ''actual'' facts as they stand. Besides, what exactly makes you so sure that what's in the bible has any truth to it at all? You are being asked by the bible to believe fairy tale stories like Noah's flood which are ludicrous. If you really think about these stories logically they make no sense at all.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetans. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually do you have anything more compelling than a preferential objection to the idea that natural law and chance are responsible for the evolution of the universe? Not to be confused with biological evolution which is an actual science. If you do have more than a preferential objection I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to hear it. Otherwise unless you can prove the existence of an intelligent designer or prove that the universe could not have come into existence through chance acting upon natural processes you cannot claim that the idea of an intelligent deisgner is "more logical".

Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.

::@Scorpianman - If the universe being created by an explosion and natural selection over a few billion years is fairy tale, surely you don't want me to believe that some supernatural being, that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or detected in any way, and was written about in a book by somebody a few thousand years ago which could have been complete fiction, which was then translated (however accurately or inaccurately), has not ever communicated to anyone, yet was bored one day and decided to make the universe and everything in it? And then for some strange reason he needs everyone to pray all the time and give churches money and read stories or he'll put them in a fiery pit of doom called hell? Which, cannot be proven or detected in any way either? But if they do do that, he'll bring them to heaven? Which, also cannot be proven or detected? And he decided to place things on Earth in such a way that they disproved him creating the Earth completely? What an odd, odd fellow. Even if he did exist, which I don't think, and will never think he does, I'm not sure I'd want to follow blindly behind someone who has such strange requests. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Evolution science, which is only concerned with biological evolution, is a mathematically based science which makes the observation that the living things in this world exist within a nested heirarchy, and that nested heirarchies are created by branching. This makes evolution a scientific theory mainly because it subjects evolution to falsifiability. Afterall if it isn't falsifiable it isn't scientific. All a creationist has to do is find a creature that doesn't fit into the nested heirarchy, like a dragonfly who produces chlorophyl or has a plant cell wall. I think it highly significant that no one's been able to do this. {{unsigned|DeathMunky}}

This article should now be available for editing by registered users. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ugh==

To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. "If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals." is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't "probably" scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence "Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals." is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. "The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world." - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. "Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him." Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. "Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey." Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. "Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs." - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't agree that they were mere herbivores, but please don't associate this with ''all'' creationits; after all, CreationWiki believes that they were scavengers as well as carnivores. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's funny that you'd ask that considering some of your previous comments regarding liberals and athetists and their beliefs. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Herbivorous? ==

While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you're pointing to their biology as your evidence for their being hunters or carnivorous scavengers after the fall, could you explain what evidence you're pointing to for them being herbivorous before the fall? Just out of curiosity. {{unsigned|DeathMunky}}

== Redirect oddity? ==

First of all: I love the article, it's really hilarious. Especially the last line. That one made my day.

But on a somewhat more serious note, what is the accepted main article? Right now, the ''article'' page for "rex" redirects to "Rex", but the ''talk'' page for "Rex" redirects to "rex". It's a minor thing, but still. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Do we mean NOW? ==
I notice the the (locked) article says ..(they) "'''are''' actually vegetarians" and that Scorpioman says "they certainly '''seem''' adept hunters." Errrr.... We do know they are dead - don't we? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Apparently, you and I do, but they're not quite sure. See [[Dinosaur]] and its sources, especially [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, well. I've seen the conservapedia article before, but I hadn't clicked the link you provided. It's hard to make a reasoned intelligent response really. There's so little connection to reality. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sid, don't be absurd. Of ''course'' we know they're dead. Stop trying to insult us. But since you're going to be so picky, shall I say "It certainly seems that they ''were'' adept hunters"? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, stealthily sneaking up on an unsuspecting CABBAGE! [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'll gladly include you in the list of people who know they're dead, but quite a few people here and out there seem to argue that they might still exist. Or at least they try to spread as much doubt as possible. My usage of "they" had been somewhat broad, though. Honest apologies for that. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then somebody should change this locked article so that it reads "were actually vegetarians". It'll still be wrong, but at least that little bit of grammar would be correct. You might want to change the bit about the teeth as well. As far as the "they believe" and "we believe" stuff is concerned - I note that the Dinosaur article talks about creationists believing that dinosaurs "still roam the earth today". I'm afraid I don't know you - could you tell me who you speak for when you say "we"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Maybe YEC folks think we were ALL born yesterday? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Far weirder thing is that the first sentence states that they ''were'' carnivorous while the entire rest of the article argues that they ''weren't'' carnivorous. Like, make up your mind, please? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

== Bible ==

''"Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."''

Aren't all Christians Bible-believing? Or am I mistaken and there are some Christians that don't believe in the Bible, Jesus and God.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

You are mistaken. Most Christians, including catholics, eastern orthodox, and mainline protestants respect the bible, but do not take it as literal truth. The loud evangelical literalists in the states are the minority of Christians. Though Conservapedia is built for the wacky fringes, not for conservatives as I had previously thought.

Perhaps we should rename it to "whackopedia", though that name may be taken by a different sort of project!

:"Whackopedia" sounds like a great title of a parody of Wikpedia, although there already is one: [[Uncyclopedia]]. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 14:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article Protection==

I unlocked this article earlier in the hopes of a well-written, accurate entry being created. If the "evolutionist"/creationist text keeps being replaced without accurate sources, this article will be protected again. I don't support the locking of articles, but if need be, it will be done. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diet ==

I've added a section on tyrannosaur's diet. If anything is missing, feel free to add. Most of it is there already, but if there are some other aspects about this creature's diet that need to be there, please add them in. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 14:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Did not Live?? ==

I see that there is a line under the alternative theories which states the animal: "either did not live, or that they lived at the same time as humans at some point in history." While I can (just about)imagine somebody believing that they co-existed with humans - are there really people who simply refuse to believe they existed at all? The bones come from ... where? in this case? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:<s>That section needs reworking because it doesn't make sense at the moment</s>.
:Ok I've done it now. I left that view in that they didn't exist - YECs used to have that opinion, though I couldn't find a decent source for it. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 17:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I've never heard that argument put forth by anyone. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 18:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. ==

Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. That was the reason for the rollback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Erm, OK, which rule was broken, and what ''scientific'' evidence is there that T-rex lived about 6,000 years ago? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Everything you post must be true and verifiable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::'''''IT IS TRUE'''''. Me saying that there is not scientific evidence to support it, and then not citing the nonexistent scientific evidence, affirms the point made. It is ''your'' job to support your views by adding citations that there ''is'' some ''scientific'' evidence to support it. Though there isn't. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can't bloody prove either viewpoint. That's what NPOV is for. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Conservative''', I believe that you were too quick and too judgemental here. ''Before'' you accuse someone of breaking a rule, you should establish and demonstrate that they ''have'' broken a rule. That he had broken a rule was not self-evident, and it could have been inadvertent or through a misunderstanding. You should engage in discussion before throwing accusations.

'''Hojimachongtalk''', your claim that there is very little evidence is ''not'' a fact, but the view of anti-creationists. Creationists point out that both evolutionists and creationists have the ''same'' evidence, but the difference is in how one interprets the evidence. To use an unrelated example, the Grand Canyon is evidence of erosion on a large scale. Uniformitarians interpret this as the result of a little bit of water (the Colorado River) acting over a long period of time. Creationists interpret it as the result of a lot of water (e.g. flood runoff) acting over a short period of time. Same evidence, different interpretations.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:For the last time, ''I never said it wasn't a fact''. I said that ''most mainstream scientists'' (you know, the evil, heathen, hellbound atheist ones) feel that the view is ''not supported by enough evidence''. They certainly regard it in that manner. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&diff=65031&oldid=64969 Your edit] had the article saying, "this [creationist] view is supported by very little scientific evidence". There's no qualifier there that that's what most mainstream scientists believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incivility is not appropriate, Hojimachong ==

Hojimachong is being quite uncivil. Here is what he wrote to me: "It is a fact that there is very little ''scientific'' evidence. '''Quote the Bible all you want''', but it does not encompass the generally accepted scientific view, which is that T-rex lived several million years ago. It specifically said, ''backed up by very little scientific evidence'', which is true. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Explain how in any stretch of the imagination this is incivil. I am voicing a completely valid concern (your deletion of factual material). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - why are you whining? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Let's not argue about who's civil, uncivil, whining, etc. Free pizza and root beer to all who agree. :-)
:::Sounds good to me. Now wheres the <s>root</s> beer and pizza? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Extinction==

:This view is regarded with much skepticism by people outside the young earth creationist community, who feel it is not supported by enough evidence.

I'd like to see any 'scientific' references related to estimates of how long ago t-rex went extinct. I gather Young Earth creationism is at odds with mainstream biology on this. A good encyclopedia would describe this dispute clearly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::The general consensus among scientists is that T-Rex, along with nearly all other land dinosaurs, became extinct during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, about 65.5 million years ago. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== YEC theories ==

One of the mentioned "theories" of Young Earth Creationists is that T-Rex "did not live" -- I am not sure how that theory works. Who created the skeletons of T-Rex, then? Have a look at the [http://creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurus_rex Creation Wiki] page on T-Rex; perhaps it might be of some value as a model. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Some think that the Earth was created "with age", seeing as how all the animals were fully matured, mountains/canyons were carved, etc. Therefore, some think that the Earth was created with the fossils already in the ground, and that the dinosaurs never actually existed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks Hoji -- well, an all-powerful Creator can create whatever sort of Earth He wishes, but the purpose of creating fossil skeletons of creatures which never lived must certainly be a rather obscure part of the Divine plan. In any case, I just wondered whether "theory" was the best word for a claim which doesn't seem to explain anything. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Can anyone name me ''one'' creationist working for one of the major creationist organisations (CMI, AiG, ICR, CRS) who believes that God created the fossils already in the ground? Unless you can (and I know you can't), that bit should come out of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not a view found in the organisations. Rather it's a theological opinion which is occassional formed by individuals. It's crops up on occassion, so I think we should mention it, but it shouldn't be called mainstream or common. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::As long as the qualifications that you put there are quite clear in the article, I guess I could go along with that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

The linked references to the Creation Science section include on that mentions Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster in passing, so the mention of these in the article -- if this reference is retained -- don't seem to be entirely groundless. Also, I would note that most of the articles cited are not themselves sources, but articles citing other articles (e.g. ''Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10'', which does not seem to be available itself anywhere online, is the source for one of the referenced article's claim of human and dinosaur footprints being found together. It should also be noted that the items referenced so far are general essays on pro-Creation and Christian websites.[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Before/after the fall ==

If T-Rex lived in the garden of Eden, he must have been a vegetarian rather than a scavenger since there was no death in the garden, right? If so, it looks like God created T-Rex knowing that man would fall and the world would need some predators. I wonder what Adam thought when he saw those huge teeth and massive claws. I wonder if he had some thought in the back of his head that something was off?

Also, is there a consensus on whether T-Rex made it to the Ark? I've read that they became extinct because they didn't make it to the Ark, but other sources say that ALL animals made it to the ark and T-Rex would then have become extinct sometime after the flood - perhaps because of overhunting (That is Kent Hovind's view).

Any thoughts on the above? [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 11:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Genesis indicates that the animals were created as vegetarians, so correct on that point. And of course an omniscient God would know what would happen. But it doesn't necessarily mean that T. Rex was designed to eat meat. There are creatures today that would be (and in at least one case are) classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth, but which are vegetarians. Big sharp teeth can be used by vegetarians, but in a fallen world, some creatures—such as ones with big sharp teeth—may be better suited to becoming carnivores than others.
:If T. Rex fossils are found in sediments laid down by the flood (which they are), then they must have survived until the time of the flood, and (at least) two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature alive at the time of the flood made it onto the ark. Therefore, so did T. Rex, and it must have become extinct since, possibly because of changed habitat, possibly because of being hunted to extinction by man (or of course a combination of reasons).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
Asked CPAdmin1 why revert was made and didn't get a response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:CPAdmin1#Recent_change_on_T-Rex_page Query] Put references back in. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 22:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Added links to the science article and a PDF of the methods used for the research.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I haven't looked at the page yet. When I was an active Mediator at Wikipedia I often commented before taking a look. May as well get all my cards on the table before playing the game. Okay, here goes (dons spacesuit, enters time machine). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Point of view==

What's that logical fallacy called again, [[begging the question]]? Anyway, I only got this far in the article history:

:Recent findings have shown that the Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&diff=next&oldid=72413]

That sort of wording is unsuitable because:
#Saying that something "has been shown to be true" is the same as endorsing the view, i.e., calling it "[[knowledge]]" (justified true belief).
#Scientists like to take a few months or years to kick around a new idea before deciding whether to accept it or not.

Shall I stop here, or continue my analysis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please continue. This research has been anticipated since the discovery of the soft tissue. The claims from it have already undergone scientific review, one reason so many of us have known about it before the publication. We can reword it to say something like "has been found to be linked to..." --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this:

::"A recent study by (whoever did the study) indicates that the Tyrannosaurus may be the genetic forebear of the modern chicken. (reference)"

::This way, there is still considerable room for doubt but it will direct people to the reference where they can decide for themselves if the science is valid. I disapprove of the term cousin in this setting also. Lacks ''gravitas''. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I would be fine with that:). I reverted what had been posted before and added additional links since yesterday they were not avalible online. I guess the other issue was the total removal of the scientific community's consensus as well, not the chicken thing as much as the age thing.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The problem is with the concept of a [[finding]]. We need to say (1) that scientists '''think''' there's a connection between raptors and chickens and (2) that this important because (as they 'think') it '''demonstrates''' (illustrates? proves?) once and for all that the [[Theory of evolution]] is true and all those YECs are [[dodo]]s (i.e., birdbrains doomed to extinction).

Or something like that - anyway, that's the [[subtext]]. By the way, I keep making all these red links for a reason. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL, I got your hint and can add to the red. (I feel like one of my students correcting the red marks I put on their essay exams). I am fine with point 1 but point 2 is not needed here. The edits were made due to the research that linked the T-Rex with the chicken instead of other animals. The evolution stuff can be placed on the ToE page, here I believe just the information that is within the scope of this page should be placed.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about something like this "Scientists have hypothesized about a link between dinosaurs and birds for many years. Just recently a research article "cite" was published, claiming a molecular link between the T-Rex and chickens."--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That's about right. The key to wiki collaboration is to anticipate (and head off) all likely objections. Not overstating one's point is generally the best tactic. See [[terms to avoid]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I'll agree that maybe the original wording wasn't the best, but I still think it should be included in the article as it does pertain to the T Rex. Also, if the YEC section is to be included, why not information that supports/presents the evolution idea too?
::::<s>I'd still like an explanation from the webmaster why he removed it and ignored my questions. I hate non-confrontation.</s> [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

----

TimS, the problem that I had with your edits, other than Ed's point about "finding" vs. a different wording, is that I don't believe the scientists have actually done what you said they have. That is, they have not shown "that the Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken". What they ''have'' done is show similarities between T rex and modern chickens. But is that similarity due to evolutionary relationship, or other causes?

Dr. Menton [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3043/ commented] on earlier work similar to this:
{{QuoteBox|...all of the similarities they describe would be expected in essentially any amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal. All small blood vessels are tubular and branched. All blood vessels, as well as the heart, are lined with special cells called endothelial cells. Among other things, these cells are necessary to avoid clotting of the blood inside the vessel. And of course, all blood vessels contain … blood cells}}
Do you know of any studies that have been done to show that the T rex material is ''closer'' to that of chickens than (a) other birds, or even (b) reptiles or other vertebrates?

Also, I don't agree with putting the YEC stuff in a separate section. This has the result of describing when they live, what they eat, etc., in the main sections, with the YEC stuff relegated to an "also ran". I will be reverting that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, because I am getting ready to head to work. Question (a) from above: yes they had tested the proteins against other bird families. (b) yes they tested agains several families of vertebrates, reptiles and mammals. Review the link to the science page and read the research yourself. What Dr. Menton is discribing is an physiological comparison, what was done was a molecular comparison. They are totaly different, a physiolgical comparison would identify you as a human while a molecular one would identify you as related to your grand parents, or the English royal family.

I can understand your position of not believeing, that is why we are changing the wording, however that is not a reason to strike it. I do not believe much of what is written, however that does not make it any less.
The YEC stuff was not touched by the edits of Jrssr5 and I.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:For easy reference, here are Jrssr5's and TimS' links that he added to the article (only the first two of which are currently in the article):
:* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties]
:* [http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue]
:* [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/277]
:* [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/316/5822/277/DC1/1]

: Okay, with a closer look, I think I've found what you were referring to. The 1st reference does make mention of comparisons with a newt and a frog. But in the absence of any other creatures mentioned (or have I missed something else?), that's hardly a convincing argument. At the most, it says that dinosaurs are more similar to birds than amphibians. I think that could have been presumed anyway.
: And my other point is that it doesn't prove an evolutionary relationship. Dinosaurs and birds ''are'' similar (both are air-breathing vertebrates, for example), so you would expect similarities if they were both designed by the same creator. So demonstrating similarities does not prove an evolutionary relationship. Or have you already conceded that point?
: And apologies for any (unintended) inference that either you or Jrssr5 had moved the YEC stuff.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: I've since found another source ([http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken]) which does mention other creatures that they compared against. However, it also says this:
{{QuoteBox|The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58% ,while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows}}
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip, the first two links were already there, I just added the science publication links. The difference in what you sourced above with the % sequences is based on DNA squencing, this is protein matching, something alot more difinitive. Whereas DNA squences are transcribed to RNA and then translated into an aminoacid chain the protein is helped by other proteins to form the final shape. So the same DNA sequence can be used to produce several different possible proteins. However, when molecular protein matching is performed the results are far more difinitive, think about how a western blott works. DeWitt cited another work by the group however his cite did not show what he stated. No where in the research did the comparisons between humans, frogs and cows was made in the article that he cited. I know those percentages to be DNA sequence percentages not protein sequences. Totaly different standards, like comparing apples to oranges. Check the sources yourself and you can see the difference--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry about the links. Jrssr5 added the first two a short time before you added the other two. I've corrected it.
:Isn't DNA sequencing what is used to show the 98% (or whatever the figure is today) similarity between apes and humans? Are you sure this is not a case of picking the comparison that suits the argument best?
:Regardless, it still doesn't affect the argument that similarities could be due to a common designer (using similar proteins for similar functions).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::It is a combination of DNA and protein matching to get that number. Although it is important to note that not every ape is as close as others. I will agree that it does not make any statement towards the similarities that could be due to a designer.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just for my curiosity, what are these scientists claiming about the T-rex/chicken relationship (if anything)? That various dinosaurs independently evolved into different birds, or that some dinosaur evolved into a bird, from which all modern birds are descended, and that chickens are the nearest thing to that original bird? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I can not say. The paper only reported the similarities and showed the genetic distance of other families of animals from the dinosaurs. They made no claim about the method of descent just that there was a relationship.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for both answers. I didn't mean to imply that all apes are the same in that regard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No problem Philip, I am glad you asked for the information.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm glad to see that a resolution was made here. Philip, you always seem to have a level head and are rational. Even though I don't share some of your beliefs, working with you is easy. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Just going back to my last question for a moment, I accept that you don't know the answer, but would you agree that the two possibilities I mentioned seem to be about the ''only'' two possibilities, and that both seem rather unlikely (even within the evolutionary paradigm)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== T-Rex soft tissue? ==

I am a little concerned about the soft tissue reference.

The source is a creationist site. I do not mean to imply that creationist sites are necessarily unreliable - but isn't there some other additional source? It sounds like a sensational find. I would have expected it to make the front cover of New Scientist.

Also, when you look at the site a couple of things stand out for me. Firstly the story says that the tissue was found in a T-Rex bone that they had to break in order to transport it by helicopter. Does that sound right to you? Breaking a T-Rex bone to transport it? Not to me either.

Second, if the flesh was not fossilized why hasn't it been carbon dated? That would settle a few arguments wouldn't it?

The whole thing sounds a bit suspicious. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If creationists accepted carbon dating there wouldn't be creationists anymore, don't you think?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

How about [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html National Geographic]? The [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm BBC] has a good article too. The NG article explains the why of breaking the bone:
<blockquote>The dinosaur was under an incredible amount of rock," said Jack Horner, a curator of paleontology at the museum. "When it was collected, the specimen was very far away from a road, and everything had to be done by helicopter.</blockquote>
<blockquote>"The team made a plaster jacket to get part of the fossil out, and it was too big for the helicopter to lift. And so we had to take the fossil apart.</blockquote>
<blockquote>"In so doing, we had to break a thighbone in two pieces. When we did that, it allowed [Schweitzer] to get samples out of the middle of the specimen. You don't see that in most excavations, because every effort is made to keep the fossil intact," said Horner, a co-author of the study.</blockquote>
Give it a read.--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, there you go. I stand corrected. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 21:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Freakin' amateurs! (LOL)

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Why don't they carbon-date the remains? Because the scientists concerned believe that the remains are 65 million years old, which is too old to date with carbon dating. Creationists wish that they ''would'' carbon-date the remains—it would almost certainly show that they are ''not'' 65 million years old. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It wouldn't show anything of the sort. It would bottom out at the limit of the Carbon dating test, which isn't the same thing at all. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years, so 65 million years is approximately 10000 half lives. So after 65 million years, C14 will have reduced by a factor of 2^10000, which can essentially be regarded as infinite. It's like measuring your way home from work using a tape measure: once you reach the end of the tape you can't measure any further. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:I believe it would show it, because I believe that they are not that old! The tape measure is a good analogy in this case. Evolutionists won't "measure" the age because they believe that the tape measure is not long enough to measure it. Creationists, while agreeing on the length of the tape measure, believe that the tape measure ''is'' long enough, and would like it "measured". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No, according to Alosyius' explanation, carbon dating wouldn't work in this case: after 10000 half lives there's not much C-14 left.

Carbon dating does have an upper limit, it's currently about 60.000 years, then anything older than 60.000 years would would give the same test results (the differences became so small they can't be detected anymore): you wouldn't know whether it was 10 or 65 million years old, only that it's older than the upper limit: we'll only know it's at least 60.000 years old.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:You're still not seeing the picture. What if the dinosaurs fossils are less than 5,000 years old? You would get a carbon-dating result then, wouldn't you? Alternatively, what if you did a C14 test and got a result? It would mean that they were less than 60,000 years old, wouldn't it? It appears that your blind loyalty to the secular dating is preventing you from even understanding the alternative view that I'm trying to put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Secular dating? What's that? Is there religous dating of artifacts/fossils? Please explain. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Uniformitarian dating. Dating that ''a priori'' excludes Biblical history and its potential affects on the results from consideration. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure they did try that on at least one dinosaur, besides, they used it on 10.000 years old human settlements.

Why would you want to carbon date a T-rex anyway?
It's just gonna give the +60.000 years old result, but then you'd just say carbon dating is flawed.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:(sigh). You haven't answered my question above. You've simply repeated your own blinkered point of view. You're simply saying, "you can't be right because I'm right". That's not an argument; that's an assertion of a closed mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I was just saying that carbon dating a dinosaur would give the +60.000 years old result, it would be right there on the screen of the cyclotron, whether you believe in evolution or not, you're not saying the cyclotron is biased, are you?

I was also wondering why carbon dating a dinosaur would be reliable according to you, while carbon dating human settlements wouldn't be?

Besides there is a technique called potassium argon dating which can be accurately used for rocks that are between 100.000 and billions of years old, it's been used to confirm that the chronology derived from stratigraphic research is roughly correct.

My point is that as soon as you would see a result from either of these techniques that's older than 6000 years, you would just respond by saying these techniques are flawed.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Why don't we just do away with radiometric dating, potassium argon dating, and all the rest? Instead, we just ask you how old something is, because you can obviously tell the age of something without those tests being performed! Do you get the point yet? You are saying that my opinion of what the result of such a test would be is wrong because you already "know" how old it is!
:Is a cyclotron used for dating? Regardless, measuring instruments don't give dates. They give quantities of elements and isotopes, from which scientists use calculations and biased assumptions to produce a date. So it's not a matter of whether a cyclotron or other instrument is biased, but the researcher calculating the date.
:I never said that carbon dating a a dinosaur would be accurate. I'm saying that I expect that carbon dating a dinosaur would give a result that is inconsistent with the evolutionary age. It would also probably be inconsistent with the creationary age too, but creationists don't accept those dates, whereas evolutionists supposedly do. That's the point.
:And no, I would not "just respond by saying these techniques are flawed". I would also mention ''why'' they are flawed.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:24, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Nuclear physics isn't biased, on the atomic level everything works exactly the way scientists predict: decay rates are real, not the product of biased research.

This link gives an example of radiometric dating being used: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/meteordate.html#c1, 4.5 billion years old meteorites in this case (from space, so definitely uncontaminated).

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Okay, so point me to the observations that show, for example, that the decay rates have ''never'' changed. You can't because nobody has been around for that 4.5 billion years to make those observations. Secondly, despite your claims, there are plenty of examples where things ''haven't'' worked exactly the way that scientists predict. For example, wood embedded in basalt gave an age of around 40,000 years for the wood, but around 40,000,000 years for the basalt, but they were clearly the same age.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/731] [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Because the laws of physics would have to change in order to change decay rates, no, we can't be 100% certain that God didn't change the mass of neutrino and quark particles at sometime, just as we can't be 100% certain that Marduk didn't create the world out of the corpse of the heavenly snake Tiamat.
Proposing that the laws of physics would have been changed is pure speculation, scientists tend to stick with what they know.
Do you blame God when you lose your car keys, or do you try to retrace your steps?

As for inaccurate dating, it does happen on occasion, in this case it probably happened because you'll need carbon dating (0 - 60.000 years) for the wood and potassium-argon dating (100.000 - billions of years) for the rock, because rocks don't contain carbon and wood doesn't contain potassium or argon, no matter what the age of the fossil is, there is no way these two measurements will ever correspond: this case worked out exactly as could have been predicted by decay rates.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Scientists have never been able to change the laws of physics, but they have managed to change decay rates in some circumstances, so that puts the kybosh on your idea that decay rates can't change without changing the laws of physics.
:So you're actually suggesting that one or both of those dating methods will give inaccurate results, are you? That's quite an admission!
:But you are wrong. If the wood and basalt were actually 40 million years old, then carbon dating would give a nil result; that is, there would be no measurable carbon 14 left, meaning that the calculated date was "older than 60,000 years". 40 million years is compatible with "older than 60,000 years". However, this is ''not'' what happened. The carbon date actually worked out to 40,000 years, ''because there was measurable C14 in it''. This means that the wood was ''less than'' 60,000 years old, in total contradiction to the basalt age of 40 million years.
:Your implied claim that C14 dating would give this result because the limit of C14 dating is 60,000 years is really saying that an artifact older than 60,000 years could give a date younger than 60,000 years, which means that if a date is younger than 60,000 years you can't be sure it isn't really older than 60,000 years, which means you can't trust it at all!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Not at all. To use an analogy which came up earlier- say I have a tap measure that goes out to 10 meters. I can draw it out all the way. So if I measure how much it is drawn out I can get an answer less than 10 meters, or I can get 10 meters an answer which really means at least 10 meters. Similarly, if I get a date of about 60,000 years I know that the object is approximately at least that old. An object older than 60,000 years will in general not give a date less than about 50,000 years (this is due to the margin of error being high at the lower end of reliability). In general, carbon dating actually works best with objects that are about 2000 to 25,000 years old. The technique is reliable for a bit outside that range in both directions but the error bars become much larger and the precision of measurement required makes it difficult to perform without more specialized equipment. Note that I haven't worked on C-14 dating related stuff in a while so the numbers I gave above may be slightly off, but they are close to correct [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That sounds more like a "not quite" than a "not at all", but regardless, you said that an object older than 60,000 years will in general not give a date less than about 50,000 years, yet I was quoting something that gave a date of 40,000 years, so it seems that your caveat doesn't apply. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

The current upper limit of 60.000 years is the result of a technique [http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/rsch_highlight/articles/200511.html] [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s990775.htm] developed in 2005, the research you linked to was done in 1994, when the upper limit was 35.000 to 40.000 years at best, and in case of the possibility of contamination it would have been closer to the 25.000 years Joshua pointed out.

Creationontheweb also does not provide a link to the research itself, I hypothesized a probable theory (I did say probably), but without the research itself, there is no way for me to say for certain what went wrong, although it wouldn't surprise me if the mistake has already been corrected recently, but is nevertheless still cited by creationists (see Piltdown Man).

Here is the original research used to determine whether C14-dating was useful (it links C14-dates on Egyptian mummy's among other things to corresponding historical dates) [http://www.c14dating.com/int.html].

Anyway, I'd say the 40 million years old result is right, because C14 is more easily influenced by contamination or inacuracies, because the date is close to the upper limit (in 1994) and because 40 million years came close to the estimated age (by other techniques) of the basalt layer.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I'll have to check out that bit about the limits of the research in 1994, but claiming "contamination" simply because a date doesn't suit sounds like special pleading.
:There is no link for the research because CMI did it themselves (not the actual testing; that was done at a commercial laboratory). So that also blows the "corrected recently" possibility. Piltdown man is still cited (occasionally) because it's still true—that is, still true that there was fraud. This present case is not an example of fraud, nor of the researchers getting it wrong, but of evidence that conflicts with the uniformitarian paradigm.
:I'm not questioning that C14 dating is useful when it's used for objects in a date range for which the method has been calibrated (i.e. the last few thousand years). It's beyond that, for both C14 and other methods, where the method is based on assumptions and extrapolations, not calibration, that creationists question it.
:So you are choosing which "unbiased" radiometric date to accept and finding ad hoc explanations to dismiss the other one. Dating's not so infallible after all, is it?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:

==Feathers==
I find it odd that one of the tenants on which CP was founded was the unreliability of wikipedia, yet a reference to an article there is used. Surely in the YECs attempt to prove evolution wrong you can do better (and by better I mean not AiG). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:I wondered the same thing about the Wikipedia reference, although I did leave it there and improve it (the footnote). What's wrong with the AiG reference? (AiG is off-line at the moment, so I can't see the article to reference is to.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I didn't mean that AiG article in particular, I just don't trust most things coming from that website. A truly independent source is what I meant should be used. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:30, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

Discordianism

2007-08-13T17:21:35Z

Hojimachong:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===The Curse of Greyface===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do You Believe That?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Category: Religion]]
[[Category:Parody Religion]]

Discordianism

2007-08-13T17:19:50Z

Hojimachong: define "cult" - this fits more with parody religion