Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Potato

2011-06-20T00:33:02Z

JacobB: /* Cuisine */

[[Image:Potatopic.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
The '''potato''' (pl. ''potatoes''), also called ''Irish potato'' or ''white potato'' or, informally, ''spud'', is one of the world's most important [[food|foods]]. It ranks as the fourth-most-important food crop, after corn (maize), wheat and rice and ahead of soybeans. It provides more calories and more nutrients, more quickly, using less land and in a wider range of climates than any other plant. However, it is hard to store and ship long distances.

The potato is a [[tuber]] of ''Solanum tuberosum''; it comes in many colors (brown, purple, red, white, etc.) and can be easily cooked by frying in oil, baking, or boiling. For long-term storage or shipment, they can be frozen in strips (to make "French Fries" or "chips") or turned to powder.

==International Year of the Potato==
The United Nations declared 2008 the International Year of the Potato.<ref> See [http://www.potato2008.org/ International Year of the Potato website]</ref> It hopes that greater awareness of the merits of potatoes will contribute to the achievement of its Millennium Development Goals, by helping to alleviate poverty, improve food security and promote economic development.

==Food value==
In terms of nutrition, potatoes are high in complex [[carbohydrate]]s and [[vitamin C]].

The potato was discovered and cultivated in the Andes 3000+ years ago, and was a major food source for the [[Incas]], who gave it to the Spanish around 1520.<ref>Office of International Affairs, '' Lost Crops of the Incas: Little-Known Plants of the Andes with Promise for Worldwide Cultivation'' (1989) [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030904264X&page=92 online]</ref> They brought to Europe one main variety, the white potato. It soon became the major food crop for peasants in northern Europe. A plot of an acre or less could feed an entire peasant family for a year. Ireland became overdependent on the potato, and when a potato blight<ref> See [http://www.cropinfo.net/Potatoblight.htm "Potato Late Blight] for details.</ref> in 1845-46 destroyed most of the crop, the result was the [[Irish Potato Famine]]. The famine caused a million deaths, vast social disruption and massive emigration.

Farmers and agronomists have developed many new varieties and sub-varieties to fit different soils and climates.<ref> see [http://www.umaine.edu/paa/PVI.htm Richard W. Chase, "Potato Variety Inventory" (2008)]for a listing</ref> Harvest is usually midsummer to late fall. Most farmers plant in early spring, using well-drained, slightly acid soil; they avoid wet, soggy soils.<ref> See [http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/rowcrops/pp877w.htm Gary A. Secor, "Guidelines for Seed Potato Selection, Handling and Planting" PP-877 1997] and [http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/pdf/CIS/CIS1000.pdf "Potato Production in the Home Garden"]</ref>

The sweet potato is an entirely unrelated plant.

==Production and consumption==
Many countries produce potatoes; almost all is for local consumption as the international market is small.

The ten leaders in production in 2007, in million metric tons were:
# 72 China
# 36 Russia
# 26 India
# 19 Ukraine
# 18 USA
# 12 Germany
# 11 Poland
# 8.5 Belarus
# 7.2 Netherlands
# 6.3 France

At first people were highly suspicious, but as economist [[Adam Smith]] concluded in 1776:
:"The very general use which is made of potatoes in [Britain] as food for man is a convincing proof that the prejudices of a nation, with regard to diet, however deeply rooted, are by no means unconquerable."

Served as "French fries", often alongside burgers and colas, potatoes are now an icon of globalization.

Belorussians lead the world with 345 kilos consumed per person per year--an amazing two pounds a day per man, woman and child.

==History==
Potatoes yield abundantly with little effort, and adapt readily to diverse climates so long as the climate is cool and moist enough for the plants to gather sufficient water from the soil to form the starchy tubers. Potatoes do not keep very well in storage and are are vulnerable to molds that feed on the stored tubers, quickly turning them rotten. By contrast grain can be stored for several years without much risk of rotting.
===Peru===
Potatoes were first domesticated in Peru between 3000 BC and 2000 BC. In the altiplano, potatoes provided the principal energy source for the Inca Empire, its predecessors and its Spanish successor. In Peru above 10,000 feet altitude, tubers exposed to the cold night air turned into chuño; when kept in permanently-frozen underground storehouses, chuño can be stored for years with no loss of nutritional value. The Spanish fed chuño to the silver miners who produced vast wealth in the 16th century for the Spanish government.<ref>Office of International Affairs, '' Lost Crops of the Incas: Little-Known Plants of the Andes with Promise for Worldwide Cultivation'' (1989) [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030904264X&page=92 online]</ref>

Peru is home to up to 3,500 different varieties of edible tubers, according to the International Potato Center, whose headquarters are near Lima. The United Nations has designated 2008 as the "International Year of the Potato" and Peru hopes to use this to draw attention to itself and its crop. Alan García, the president, has ordered that a government-sponsored program of free breakfasts for poor families should serve bread made from a mixture of potato flour with wheat, which is more expensive and has to be imported. He also wants government food services to start serving chuño, a naturally freeze-dried potato that is traditionally eaten by Andean Indians. Boiled chuño and cheese are said to have replaced sandwiches at cabinet meetings. Peru grows 25 varieties commercially, but exports little. Peruvian yellow potatoes are prized by gourmets for mashing; tubular ollucos are firm and waxy.

===Asia===
The potato diffused widely after 1600, becoming a major food resource in Europe and East Asia. Following its introduction into China toward the end of the Ming dynasty, the potato immediately became a delicacy of the imperial family. After the middle period of the Qianlong reign (1735-96), population increases and a subsequent need to increase grain yields coupled with greater peasant geographic mobility, led to the rapid spread of potato cultivation throughout China, and it was acclimated to local natural conditions.

Boomgaard (2003) looks at the adoption of various root and tuber crops in Indonesia throughout the colonial period and examines the chronology and reasons for progressive adoption of foreign crops - sweet potato, Irish potato, bengkuang (yam beans), and cassava.

===Europe===
[[Image:Potato.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]
Sailors returning from Peru to Spain with silver presumably brought maize and potatoes for their own food on the trip. Historians speculate that leftover tubers (and maize) was carried ashore and planted. Basque fishermen from Spain used potatoes as ships stores for their voyages across Atlantic in the 15th century, and introduced the tuber to western Ireland, where they landed to dried their cod.

In 1580, English adventurer [[Francis Drake]] introduced potatoes into England along with his other Spanish booty when he returned from his famous circumnavigation of the globe. In 1588 botanist Carolus Clusius made a painting of what he called "Papas Peruanorum" from a specimen in Belgium; in 1601 he reported that potatoes were in common use in northern Italy for animal fodder and for human consumption.

The Spanish had an empire across Europe, and brought potatoes for their armies. Peasants along the way adopted the crop, which was less often pillaged by marauding armies than above-ground stores of grain. Across most of northern Europe, where open fields prevailed, potatoes were strictly confined to small garden plots because field agriculture was strictly governed by custom that prescribed seasonal rhythms for plowing, sowing, harvesting and grazing animals on fallow and stubble. This meant that potatoes were barred from large-scale cultivation because the rules allowed only grain to be planted in the open fields.<ref>William H. McNeill, "How the Potato Changed the World's History." ''Social Research'' 1999 66(1): 67-83. </ref> In France and Germany government officials and noble landowners promoted the rapid conversion of fallow land into potato fields after 1750.

In Ireland the expansion of potato cultivation was due entirely to the landless laborers, renting tiny plots from landowners who were interested only in raising cattle or in producing grain for market. A single acre of potatoes and the milk of a single cow was enough to feed a whole Irish family a monotonous but nutritionally adequate diet for a healthy, vigorous (and desperately poor) rural population. Often even poor families grew enough extra potatoes to feed a pig which could be sold for cash.

====19th century====
French physician Antoine Parmentier studied the potato intensely and in ''Examen chymique des pommes de terres'' (Paris, 1774) showed their enormous nutritional value. King [[Louis XVI]] and his court eagerly promoted the new crop, with Queen Marie Antoinette even wearing a headdress of potato flowers at a fancy dress ball. The annual potato crop of France soared to 21 million hectoliters in 1815 and 117 millions in 1840, allowing a concomitant growth in population while avoiding the Malthusian trap. Although potatoes had become widely familiar in Russia by 1800, they were confined to garden plots until the grain failure in 1838-1839 persuaded peasants and landlords in central and northern Russia to devote their fallow fields to raising potatoes. Potatoes yielded from two to four times more calories per acre than grain did, and eventually came to dominate the food supply in eastern Europe. Boiled or baked potatoes were cheaper than rye bread, just as nutritious, and did not require a gristmill for grinding. On the other hand cash-oriented landlords realized that grain was much easier to ship, store and sell, so both grain and potatoes coexisted.<ref>William L. Langer, "American Foods and Europe's Population Growth 1750-1850," ''Journal of Social History,'' 8#2 (1975), pp. 51-66 </ref>

Throughout Europe the most important new food in the 19th century was the potato, which had three major advantages over other foods: its lower rate of spoilage, its bulk (which easily satisfied hunger), and its cheapness. The crop slowly spread across Europe, such that, for example, by 1845 it occupied one-third of Irish arable land. Potatoes comprised about 10% of the caloric intake of Europeans. Other foods imported from the New World included cod, sugar, rice, flour, and rum. These also provided an additional 10% of daily calories and proved a crucial factor in biodiversity of crops, thus preventing famines.<ref> John Komlos, "The New World's Contribution to Food Consumption During the Industrial Revolution." ''Journal of European Economic History'' 1998 27(1): 67-82. Issn: 0391-5115 </ref>

In Britain the potato promoted economic development by underpinning the [[Industrial Revolution]] in the 19th century. As a cheap source of calories and nutrients that was easy for urban workers to cultivate on small backyard plots. Potatoes became popular in the north of England, where coal was readily available, so a potato-driven population boom provided ample workers for the new factories. Marxist [[Friedrich Engels]] even declared that the potato was the equal of iron for its "historically revolutionary role.

[[Image:FAMINE-IRELAND.JPG|thumb|300px]]

The Lumper potato, widely cultivated in western and southern Ireland before and during the great famine, was tasteless, wet, and poorly resistant to the potato blight, but yielded large crops and usually provided adequate calories for peasants and laborers. Heavy dependence on this potato led to disaster when the potato blight turned a newly harvested potato into a putrid mush in minutes. The [[Irish Famine]] in the western and southern parts of the British-controlled island of Ireland, 1845-49, was a catastrophic failure in the food supply that led to approximately a million deaths from famine and (especially) diseases that attacked weakened bodies, and to massive emigration to Britain, the U.S. and Canada.

The Dutch potato-starch industry grew rapidly in the 19th century, especially under the leadership of entrepreneur Willem Albert Scholten (1819-92).

===US and Canada===
Potatoes were planted in Idaho as early as 1838; by 1900 the state's production exceeded a million bushels. Prior to 1910, the crops were stored in barns or root cellars, but by the 1920s potato cellars came into use. U.S. potato production has increased steadily; two-thirds of the crop comes from Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Maine, and potato growers have strengthened their position in both domestic and foreign markets.

By the 1960s, the Canadian Potato Research Centre in Fredericton, New Brunswick, was one of the top six potato research institutes in the world. Established in 1912 as a dominion experimental station, the station began in the 1930s to concentrate on breeding new varieties of disease-resistant potatoes. In the 1950s-60s the growth of the french fry industry in New Brunswick led to a focus on developing varieties for the industry. By the 1970s the station's potato research was broader than ever before, but the station and its research programs had changed, as emphasis was placed on serving industry rather than potato farmers in general. Scientists at the station even began describing their work using engineering language rather than scientific prose.<ref> Steven Turner, and Heather Molyneaux, "Agricultural Science, Potato Breeding and the Fredericton Experimental Station, 1912-66." ''Acadiensis'' 2004 33(2): 44-67. Issn: 0044-5851 </ref>

==Cuisine==

Here is a list of potato dishes:
[[Image:Burger-Lansbury.jpg|thumb|250px|Actress Angela Lansbury eating French Fries and a hamburger, 1954]]

*French fries (Belgium); called "chips" by Brits
*Mashed potatoes
*Champ (Ireland)
*Potatoes au Gratin (France)
*Gnocchi (Italy)
*Baked Potato
*Boiled Potato
*Potato pancakes (Hungary)
*Potato Chips (American snack food)
*Knish
*Tater-Tots
*Rösti (Switzerland)
*Hashbrowns

French fries (chips) are often served with [[Hamburger]]s.

==Bibliography==
* ''Economist''. "Llamas and mash," [http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10766599 ''The Economist'' Feb 28th 2008 online]
* ''Economist''. "The potato: Spud we like," (leader) [http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10766030 ''The Economist'' Feb 28th 2008 online]
* Boomgaard, Peter. "In the Shadow of Rice: Roots and Tubers in Indonesian History, 1500-1950." ''Agricultural History'' 2003 77(4): 582-610. Issn: 0002-1482 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Langer, William L. "American Foods and Europe's Population Growth 1750-1850," ''Journal of Social History,'' Vol. 8, No. 2 (Winter, 1975), pp. 51-66 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/3786266 in JSTOR]
* McNeill, William H. "How the Potato Changed the World's History." ''Social Research'' 1999 66(1): 67-83. Issn: 0037-783x Fulltext: [[Ebsco]], by a leading historian
* McNeill, William H. "The Introduction of the Potato into Ireland," ''Journal of Modern History'' 21 (1948): 218-21. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1876068 in JSTOR]
* Ó Gráda, Cormac. ''Black '47 and Beyond: The Great Irish Famine in History, Economy, and Memory.'' (1999). 272 pp.
# Ó Gráda, Cormac, Richard Paping, and Eric Vanhaute, eds. ''When the Potato Failed: Causes and Effects of the Last European Subsistence Crisis, 1845-1850.'' (2007). 342 pp. ISBN: 978-2-503-51985-2. 15 essays by scholars looking at Ireland and all of Europe
* Reader, John. ''Propitious Esculent: The Potato in World History'' (2008), 315pp the standard scholarly history
* Salaman, Redcliffe. ''The History and Social Influence of the Potato'' (1949)
* Zuckerman, Larry. ''The Potato: How the Humble Spud Rescued the Western World.'' (1998). 304 pp.

==Online resources==
* [http://www.potato2008.org/ International Year of the Potato website]
====notes====
<references/>

[[Category:Vegetables]]
[[Category:Agriculture]]
[[Category:Economic History]]

User:JacobB

2011-06-19T19:37:36Z

JacobB:

Hello, there! I'm JacobB, an editor on Conservapedia. If you have comments for me, feel free to leave them on my talk page or email me.

I'm working on the Multivariable Calculus course, and the Conservative Bible Project (where I put in quite a bit of time just formatting the KJV for translating!) but I've contributed in a number of areas. See my [[User:JacobB/todolist|to-do list]] for my future plans, my [[User:JacobB/sandbox|sandbox]] for whatever my current project is, or check out my previous contributions, listed below:
__NOTOC__
{{Userboxtop|User: JacobB}}
{{User Vandalized|12}}
{{User American}}
{{User prolife}}
{{User NoEvo}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{Userboxbottom}}
 

'''Pages I've Written:'''

*[[All's Well That Ends Well]]
*[[Altair Lander]]

*[[Christmas Carol]]

*[[Constellation Program]]

*[[Copyright Infringement]]

*[[Countability (Mathematics)]]

*[[Dubliners]]

*[[Going Rogue: An American Life]]

*[[History of Writing]]

*[[Jimmy Hoffa]]

*[[Joseph Campbell]]

*[[McDonald v. Chicago]]

*[[Measure (Mathematics)]]

*[[Munich massacre]]

*[[Nazca]]

*[[Orion Crew Capsule]]

*[[Poincaré conjecture]]

*[[Wayne Dyer]]

'''Pages I've Re-written or Majorly Contributed To:'''

*[[Apollo 13]]

*[[Banach-Tarski Paradox]]

*[[Barry Farber]]

*[[Branch Davidians]]

*[[Child abuse]]

*[[Clothing]]

*[[Heart]]

*[[History of Clothing]]

*[[Inca]]

*[[Joseph-Louis Lagrange‎]]

*[[Liver]]

*[[Writing]]

[[Image:Demotivator.jpg|right|thumb|400px]]

'''Lectures I've Written'''or co-written''':'''

*[[Template:CalcI|Calculus]]

*[[Template:CalcII|Advanced Calculus]]

*[[Template:MVCalc|Multivariate Calculus]]

'''Essays I've Written:'''

*[[Essay: The Gradual Destruction of the Second Amendment]]

Many of these need expanding - especially Joseph Campbell. This will remind me to get back to it! I need to learn to get off Reddit and get to work. Sigh.

Talk:Great Achievements by Teenagers

2011-02-06T20:10:41Z

JacobB: /* Roger Mason entry */

==Clarification==
Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. Especially, this list can't be used to bolster up the claim that ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers''
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Heavenly voices ==

Is hearing heavenly voices an acheivement? Is was it leading France to victory that was the acheivement? It rather reads as if the hearing of voices was the acheivement. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Reversion ==

Obviously if someone produced a work ''before'' becoming a teenager it proves the same point; hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:34, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:Then how about renaming the page to keep it accurate? "Great Achievements by Minors", maybe? [[User:DRussell|DRussell]] 21:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Karl Benz ==

I removed [[Karl Benz]]: Though he was a child prodigy, at the given age ('''15'''), he ''"only"'' passed the entrance exam of the University of [[Karlsruhe]]. His genius really flourished in his late thirties. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

==Later Achievments==
* '''7''' - Yehudi Menuhin: made his last recording age 82
* '''8''' - [[Pablo Picasso]] Cubism: age 30
* '''8''' - [[Frederic Chopin]] Piano Concert No. 1: age 20
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] "Traité du triangle arithmétique": age 30
* '''13''' - [[John]] stays a mistery
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] inspired and led [[France]] to victory in the [[Hundred Years War]]
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl"
* '''14''' - chess-player [[Bobby Fischer]] World Chess Champion: age 29
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]]"Don Giovanni": age 32
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion: deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]] age 32
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus) - it is only published when she is 21, however.
* '''20''' - Carl Friedrich Gauss makes his first mathematical discoveries, which will lead to the completion of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae", his magnum opus, at the age of 21.

So, most of the persons in the list made contributions to their field works overshadowing there achievements as teenagers.

[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:57, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:A corrosive attitude is not beneficial. If, as Andy suggested, you opened your mind you might find nmany more examples to support this case. Bear in mind: demolition is easy, to build takes effort! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)

==Jesus==

I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with including Jesus on a list of "teenagers." Part of that may just be a visceral reaction against applying the term to the Almighty, but setting that aside, I'm still not entirely sure he belongs on the list. After all, despite His physical age at the time he preached, He was still God, and therefore timeless and eternal. It's going to be a little hard for anyone, teenager or adult, to measure up to His list of accomplishments! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==IQ Peak==

Although it is a hotly debated subject, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that IQ peaks in the pre-teen/teenage years. The linked article provides evidence to support that the rate of brain development peaks at this time, but this is idependant of a person's IQ.

To highlight the diparate viewpoints, it is possible to show an IQ peak at anywhere from 14-16yrs old, all the way up to 50yrs+ - depending on what you measure, how you measure and how you interpret your findings (as with many stats i suppose).

More info: http://www.albion.edu/psychology/fac_psyc/jwilson/psy101/intell.htm

Hope my edit is satisfactory --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Mary as "17"==

Can I suggest using the word "uncertain" for Mary's age instead of assuming that it's 17? That takes nothing away from the assumption that she was a teenager when she gave birth, but it doesn't seem right for CP to state a specific age as if it were a fact when the comment goes on to acknowledge that the actual age was unknown. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: The footnote is clear enough. No one doubts she was a teenager, and 17 was an average age of betrothal. The purpose of this list is plainly not to pinpoint precise ages, but merely to show the teenagers as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:: I don't disagree with that. I've added an asterisk after her age to highlight that it's an approximation, and leaving the rest as-is. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:03, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:::It could be even earlier; in the middle ages it was not uncommon for girls to give birth at 14, so in this case I think it could be as young as 15 (but I think it's 16, personally). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:29, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I too was given to believe she was younger than 17 at the time. My maternal family line has a long tradition of Mary-derived names in firstborn daughters, (I'm Regina, yes, that's Mary Derived, have "Ave Regina") and my mother always told the story that she was around 15. When I was little that seemed quite grown up, but when I was 15 myself, it struck me just how very brave she was, and how young. I think the note of approximation is important for this reason, it is true she could have been as old as 17, but at that young age, two years is a world of difference in maturity and self assurance. If she was indeed younger than 17, bumping up her age underestimates the greatness of her faith. Best err on the side of caution and reverence. [[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 13:25, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I side with Birdie, I have always understood it as the age of 15. --Jpatt 14:27, 30 December 2008 (EST)

==Bill Gates==

A 13-year-old programming is not a remarkable achievement, and Gates' significant accomplishments occurred as a young adult, not a teen. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:I understand your point and I for one do not wish to glorify an atheist. By todays standards, that is not an achievement. At age thirteen in 1968, think about the computer he was working with? It is a bright child that succeeded, is it a great achievement? --Jpatt 14:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::Under further scrutiny, I have decided against including Bill Gates. What did he achieve at 13? computer skills, not a great achievement. Also, he has enough accolades, believes in the God of nothing (catch that prying eyes?), listed next to Anne, no way the two should reside together :) --Jpatt 20:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== remove some or move the page? ==

If it is going to be Great achievements be teenagers, then we need to limit the list to teenagers only, not 8 and 10 year olds and 20 year olds. We need to remove the non-teenagers from the list, or else change it to something like "great achievements by young people" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 19:55, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:12 year olds are also not teenagers. It sounds like we're getting technical, but saying that 8, 10, 12 and 20 year olds are teenagers is effectively the same as saying girls who wear pants are boys. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::not really. It is more like saying that 4 is an odd number because it is close to 5 which is an odd number. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 20:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)

== Roger Mason entry ==

The Roger Mason entry does not rise to the level of achievement of the others. Even if it was a meaningful discovery, which is dubious, we don't have the shepherd who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls and I don't see why would include Mason's "discovery" as a great achievement either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

:Although I didn't add that entry, I did feel it was right to change it to state it as ''what some believed'' rather state it as scientific fact. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree with your edit, and am suggesting that we go further and either toss the entry or downgrade it further in an appropriate way. It just does not rise to the level of, say, David slaying Goliath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: OK, so I see there's been some discussion of Roger Mason. The point is that he didn't just stumble over some strange markings in the rock: he knew they were fossils and he knew the rocks were pre-Cambridge. His teenage open-mindedness led him to see what older, more closed-minded professors did not see. He had the confidence to go to a professor and tell him what he'd discovered - the professor didn't believe him till he'd seen it with his own eyes. A whole new era of biological life? A big discovery by anyone's standards. I've part-reverted the deletion, i.e. I've made it clear why it was such a big deal. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:30, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Mason's achievement is that he discovered the first fossil to come from rocks that were undoubtedly of a Pre-Cambrian era. Before that, the consensus of professional scientists was that there were no complex lifeforms before the Cambrian. Mason knew the rocks were Pre-Cambrian and he knew that what he found was a fossil. The fossil is named for the place it was found, Charnwood Forest, and for him: ''Charnia masoni''. Very very few people have revolutionised a whole area of science as teenages - Mason is one of them. You can read about it in New Scientist, issue of April 14, 2007.

The text I wrote looks pretty much correct (bar one spelling mistake). I suggest you re-insert it in the article:
'''16''' - Roger Mason discovers fossils from a whole era of complex life, the Ediacran (c.600 million years ago). His open-mindedness leads to an insight which overturns the limited preconceptions of earlier scientists, including Darwin, about life on Earth. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:26, 5 February 2011 (EST)
: There have been no objections to this text so I've added it to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 14:57, 6 February 2011 (EST)
::And I've removed it again. When the site owner and a senior administrator agree something should be removed, and tell you to discuss it on the talk page, you don't just add it back in without their input. Wait for their response. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 15:10, 6 February 2011 (EST)

== ''Teen''agers ==

Hi, just found this excellent website whilst searching for information on young Kathryn Aurora Gray's outstanding achievement - I will certainly be reading through a lot more articles here and encourage my friends at church to do the same!
However I noticed that there are a few people on this list that are not teenagers and so must have been added by mistake - shall I go ahead and remove them so that the article's content matches its title? I don't want to do so without asking as I'm new here. Thanks and God bless. [[User:BobG|BobG]] 12:55, 5 January 2011 (EST)

:You haven't said what you think are mistakes. Go ahead and edit the content entry and let's what you think are mistakes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 5 January 2011 (EST)

:Bob, the individuals listed with a non-teen year obviously had remarkable contributions as teenagers also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)

::Sorry, I hadn't realized that! Shall we rephrase their entries in order to make that clear, such as by listing the teenage achievements primarily (along with the age at that point) and giving the currently listed achievements as footnotes or 'also achieved' in parentheses)? If you can help me finding information on these teenage achievements I'd be delighted to take on the task! Thanks. [[User:BobG|BobG]] 14:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)

Apart from the interesting idea that 10 year-old Kathryn Aurora Gray is a [[teenager]], is a source (from main page news report - which I added to entry) like [[CNN]], owned by [[leftist]] mogul [[Ted Turner]], with its [[liberal bias]] and support for the [[liberal]] agenda really a reliable source? The article claims the supernova happened 240 million years ago which is patent nonsense since that predates [[creation]]. CNN also claim that the girl’s father was an amateur astronomer, however, according to [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/01/10-year-old-girl-becomes-youngest-person-to-discover-a-supernova/68911/ this source] the girl’s father is a professional astronomer, so it seems extremely likely that this is an example of [[liberal deceit]] and [[professor values]] where unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge are being made on behalf of a child in a [[Narcissism|narcissistic]] frenzy of publicity seeking [[liberal arrogance]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:21, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Great Achievements by Teenagers

2011-02-06T20:08:53Z

JacobB: see talk page before contradicting the site owner

Most of the '''great achievements''' throughout history in the fields of art, culture, science and technology have been by '''teenagers'''. This may be because they are able to think in new and innovative ways, or their thinking is not hidebound by discredited nostrums; it may be attributable to great teachers and great schooling - including homeschooling. It may simply be the emergence of God-given talent at an early age, and the natural open-mindedness of young people before they may experience attempts to indoctrinate them towards certain worldviews. Biologically the rate of brain development, and according to some studies [[IQ]], reportedly peak in smart individuals just prior to their teenage years.<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/30/science/sci-brain30</ref>

==Achievements, listed by age at which they were made==

* '''7''' - Yehudi Menuhin gives his first solo violin performance with the San Francisco Symphony in 1923.
* '''8''' - [[Frederic Chopin]] plays his first public piano performance, having already authored two polonaises (G minor and B flat major) at age 7.
* '''10''' - [[Mark]], author of the [[Gospel of Mark]], witnesses the arrest of Jesus and develops the first [[Gospel]].
* '''10''' - Michael Kearney, [[homeschooled]], becomes the world's youngest university graduate.<ref>He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of South Alabama.</ref>At age 17, began a teaching career at college. <ref>[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080617185918AAum3vj Who is the YOUNGEST person to graduate college?] Yahoo Answers</ref>
* '''10''' - Kathryn Aurora Gray, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, discovered supernova 2010lt.<ref>http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/04/girl-10-becomes-youngest-to-discover-supernova/ CNN</ref>
* '''10''' - Terence Tao, the youngest ever medalist in International Mathematical Olympiad.
* '''11''' - William James Sidis, became the youngest ever student at Harvard College in 1909.
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] had secretly worked out the first twenty-three propositions of Euclid by himself.
* '''12''' - [[Jesus]] presents His wisdom in the temple in [[Jerusalem]].
* '''12''' - William "Willie" Johnson earned the [[Medal of Honor]] for his actions during the [[Seven Days Battle]] and on the [[Peninsula Campaign]] during the [[American Civil War]]. [http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_1862_cwh/johnston_willie.html]
* '''12''' - William Rowan Hamilton, by this age had mastered [[Arabic]], [[Hebrew]], [[Persian]], [[Greek]], [[Latin]], Syriac, and Sanskrit among other [[languages]].
* '''13''' - [[Jonathan Krohn]] homeschooled, actor, internet radio host, guest speaker at [[CPAC]], author of ''Defining Conservatism''.
* '''13''' - [[John]] wrote the first draft of the [[Gospel of John]], the greatest written work of all time.<ref>[[Mystery:Was John a Child?]]</ref>
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] was inspired and led [[France]] five years later to victory over the English in the [[Hundred Years War]]; was martyred at age 19.<ref>http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/History/Joan_of_Arc.shtml</ref>
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl."
* '''14''' - [[David]] slays [[Goliath]].
* '''14''' - Ismail founded the Safavid dynasty and became its "shah" (military and spiritual ruler)
* '''14''' - [[Bobby Fischer]] became an International [[Chess]] Grandmaster.
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]] wrote the opera, "Mitridate Rè di Ponto."
* '''14''' - [[Nadia Comaneci]] "achieved in her sport what no [[Olympian]], male or female, ever had before: perfection."<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/events/1996/olympics/daily/july25/flashback.html</ref>
* '''14''' - [[St. Theresa of Lisieux]] rejected by Bishop Hugonin, pleads with Pope Leo XIII so she may enter the Carmelites. Became Carmelite nun at age 15.
* '''14''' - Bernadette Soubirous (St Bernadette of Lourdes) has a vision of the Virgin Mary
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system.
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion, can speak a dozen languages and delivers a paper on the Coptic language to the Grenoble Academy. By 20, he can speak another 13 languages and at 32 he deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]].
* '''16''' - Boy sailor Jack Cornwall, of HMS Chester, is awarded a [[posthumous]] [[VC]] for gallantry at the [[Battle of Jutland]].
* '''16''' - the average age of 58 [[homeschooled]] teenagers who founded Conservapedia, so that the light of truth would continue to shine and darkness would not overcome it.
* '''17''' - Cassie Bernall defended her [[faith]] in front of an [[atheistic]] gunman at the [[Columbine massacre]], and was martyred for it<ref>Two witnesses, Craig Scott and Joshua Lapp, confirmed a question-and-answer confrontation; others said Cassie was praying when murdered.[http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm]</ref>
* '''17*''' - [[Mary]] accepts [[God]]'s will to conceive [[Jesus]] by the [[Holy Spirit]], and gives birth nine months later.<ref>Mary's exact age is not known, but she was old enough to marry under Jewish law and was almost certainly a teenager.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm]</ref>
* '''17''' - Shawn Fanning develops the first large-scale peer-to-peer file sharing program, Napster
* '''17''' - Private 1st Class Jacklyn H. Lucas, [[United States Marine Corps]], earned the [[Medal of Honor]] five days after his 17th birthday during the [[Iwo Jima]] battle in [[World War II]]; he was a Marine for ''three years''. [http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_living/ii_mc_lucas.html]
* '''18''' - Lila Rose, a [[UCLA]] student who had been [[homeschooled]], goes undercover and does a stinging expose of an [[abortion]] clinic.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/may/07051504</ref>
* '''18''' - Shawn Goldsmith from Long Island has earned all 121 merit badges offered by the Boy Scouts. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473964,00.html Boy Scout Earns All 121 Merit Badges] AP, December 30, 2008</ref>
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus), later published when she was 21.
* '''18''' - [[Gary Kasparov]], considered the greatest [[chess]] player ever, won the [[U.S.S.R.]] championship.
* '''19''' - Captain Albert Ball, [[VC]], MC, DSO & 2 bars, commences his career as a fighter pilot. By the time he is killed, aged 20, in 1917, he has become one of the [[First World War]]'s greatest air aces, accounting for at least 44 [[German]] aircraft.
* '''19''' - was the average age of front-line [[US]] service personnel fighting to defend democracy in [[Indochina]] during the [[Vietnam War]].
* '''19''' - [[Evariste Galois]] applies [[group theory]] to the unsolvability of polynomial equations, before his death in a duel at age 20.
* '''19''' - [[John D. Rockefeller]] starts a new company, turning an enormous profit in its first year, and became the most influential businessman in history.<ref>http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pu-Ro/Rockefeller-John-D.html</ref>
* '''19''' - [[Steve Jobs]] begins collaborating in electronics with Steve Wozniak<ref>http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/jobs.htm</ref> in electronics, and developed the personal computer within two years.
* '''19''' - [[Mark Zuckerberg]] commercializes [[Facebook]], which later became the leading social networking system on the [[internet]].
* '''19''' - Jim Ryun broke the world record for running the mile.
* '''20''' - Carl Friedrich Gauss makes his first mathematical discoveries, which will lead to the completion of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae", his magnum opus, at the age of 21.
* '''20''' - Willis Carrier invents air conditioning.

(add more, sorted by age and then alphabetically)

== See also ==

*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]
*[[Gallery of British Heroes]]

==External Links==
*[http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-child-prodigies/ Top 10 Child Prodigies]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Achievement]]

Spectral theory (mathematics)

2011-02-06T19:15:13Z

JacobB: Created page with "In mathematics, '''spectral theory''' is the study of the "spectrum", or set of eigenvalues, of an operator. Spectral theory is so named becau..."

In mathematics, '''spectral theory''' is the study of the "spectrum", or set of [[Eigenvectors and Eigenvalues|eigenvalues]], of an operator.

Spectral theory is so named because the mathematical spectrum of certain operators in quantum mechanics are precisely the [[Absorption Spectrum|absorption spectra]] of various materials.

Atle Selberg

2011-02-06T19:10:38Z

JacobB:

'''Atle Selberg''' was born in Langesund, Norway, on 14th June, 1917. He studied mathematics at the University of Oslo and obtained his Ph.D in 1943. <ref>[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAselberg.htm Atle Selberg]</ref>

He is a Norwegian [[mathematician]] who, in 1948, provided a long-awaited elementary proof of the prime number theorem, around the same time that [[Paul Erdős]] provided an independent proof. He immigrated to the United States and works at the Institute for Advanced Study in [[Princeton University|Princeton]].

He introduced [[Spectral theory (mathematics)|spectral theory]] into number theory and developed the Selberg trace formula.

==references==

<references/>

==exterior links==

[http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Selberg.html A Biography of Atle Selberg]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Selberg, Atle}}

[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Atle Selberg

2011-02-06T19:10:11Z

JacobB:

'''Atle Selberg''' was born in Langesund, Norway, on 14th June, 1917. He studied mathematics at the University of Oslo and obtained his Ph.D in 1943. <ref>[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAselberg.htm Atle Selberg]</ref>

He is a Norwegian [[mathematician]] who, in 1948, provided a long-awaited elementary proof of the prime number theorem, around the same time that [[Paul Erdős]] provided an independent proof. He immigrated to the United States and works at the Institute for Advanced Study in [[Princeton University|Princeton]].

He introduced [[spectral theory]] into number theory and developed the Selberg trace formula.

==references==

<references/>

==exterior links==

[http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Selberg.html A Biography of Atle Selberg]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Selberg, Atle}}

[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Absorption Spectrum

2011-02-06T19:07:20Z

JacobB: Created page with "The '''absorption spectrum''' of a material is collection of frequencies of light absorbed (not reflected) by that material. The absorption spectrum is determined by the atomic a..."

The '''absorption spectrum''' of a material is collection of frequencies of light absorbed (not reflected) by that material. The absorption spectrum is determined by the atomic and molecular composition of the material. Radiation is more likely to be absorbed at frequencies that match the energy difference between two quantum mechanical states of the molecules. The absorption that occurs due to a transition between two states is referred to as an absorption line and a spectrum is typically composed of many lines.

The frequencies where absorption lines occur, as well as their relative intensities, primarily depend on the electronic and molecular structure of the molecule. The frequencies will also, though, depend on the interactions between molecules in the sample, the crystal structure (in solids) and on several environmental factors (e.g., temperature, pressure, electromagnetic field). The lines will also have a width and shape that are primarily determined by the spectral density or the density of states of the system.

User talk:HilaryA

2010-09-02T02:30:17Z

JacobB: Created page with 'The user who created the redirect is an admin. Therefore, it is the wishes of the administration that the talk page redirect. I don't know why. I think it's unusual as well. …'

The user who created the redirect is an admin. Therefore, it is the wishes of the administration that the talk page redirect. I don't know why. I think it's unusual as well. But before undoing an admins redirect, bring it up on their talk page. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 22:30, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Poe's law

2010-09-02T02:28:44Z

JacobB: Undo revision 816276 by HilaryA (Talk)

#REDIRECT [[Evolution]]

Talk:Wasilla, Alaska

2010-09-02T02:25:51Z

JacobB:

This page is plagiarized, there's nothing more to it. I don't understand why pointing this out is "trolling". --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 22:18, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:As an admin, TK is more than qualified to judge what constitutes plagiarism, particuarly compared to a user with a dozen edits. As a former admin, I would instruct you to drop this immediately. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 22:25, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

Wasilla, Alaska

2010-09-02T02:24:43Z

JacobB: Undo revision 816273 by LyleT (Talk)

'''Wasilla''', [[Alaska]] was originally settled by the Dena'ina Athabascan Indians and is named after Chief Wasilla, a local Athabascan chief. The township itself was established in 1917, when the Alaska Railroad was built to create more access to the interior. It served as a gateway to the Willow Creek mining district, a mining area that produced roughly 18 million dollars worth of gold between 1907 and the 1950's. The [[Alaska Pipeline]] brought in more residents in the 1970's and 80's, and Wasilla became one of the fastest growing cities for its size in the United States. Today, Wasilla is the commercial hub for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and has a population of just over 7,000, and the hometown of its most famous resident, [[Sarah Palin]].

Wasilla is located along Alaska's Glenn Highway, less than an hours drive from [[Anchorage]]. <ref>[http://www.alaskatravel.com/alaska/wasilla.html Alaska Tour & Travel; Wasilla]</ref>

== Outside Links ==
* [http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=1 City of Wasilla, Official Website]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category: Alaska Cities and Towns]]

Wasilla, Alaska

2010-09-02T02:15:04Z

JacobB: trolling

Millennium problems

2010-08-15T19:34:15Z

JacobB:

'''Millennium problems''' are seven unsolved problems in [[mathematics]] identified around the year 2000 as the most significant challenges known to modern mathematics. Only one has been solved, the [[Poincare conjecture]], by [[Grigori Perelman]].

==The Millennium problems==

1. The [[Poincare conjecture]], which states that if certain algebraic structures associated with a space are equivalent to those associated with a kind of sphere, then the space itself must be that kind of sphere.

2. The [[Riemann hypothesis]], which states that a certain function investigated by Bernhard Riemann in the 19th century is only equal to zero for complex numbers with real part equal to 1/2. (The so-called trivial zeroes occur at -2, -4, etc.)

3. [[P=NP]], which states that the amount of time it takes to check a possible answer to a certain kind of problem is equal to the amount of time it takes to find that answer.

4. The ''Hodge conjecture'', which identifies algebraic structures on certain kinds of complex manifolds.

5. The existence of infinitely differentiable solutions to the [[Navier-Stokes equations]], which would imply certain results about turbulence, an extremely common but not at all understood phenomenon.

6. The ''Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture'', which states there is a certain level of "simplicity" in the solutions to certain kinds of rational equations.

7. Investigation of the [[Standard Model|Yang-Mills existence and gap]]; specifically, whether Yang-Mills theory predicts particles with negative mass, and whether it contains any contradictions. Demonstrations of either negative-mass predictions or contradictions would provide clues as to how to build a more accurate theory.

[[Category:mathematics]]

Millennium problems

2010-08-15T19:34:02Z

JacobB: same deal, too advanced

'''Millennium problems''' are seven unsolved problems in [[mathematics]] identified around the year 2000 as the most significant challenges known to modern mathematics. Only one has been solved, the [[Poincare conjecture]], by [[Grigori Perelman]].

==The Millennium problems==

1. The [[Poincare conjecture]], which states that if certain algebraic structures associated with a space are equivalent to those associated with a kind of sphere, then the space itself must be that kind of sphere.

2. The [[Riemann hypothesis]], which states that a certain function investigated by Bernhard Riemann in the 19th century is only equal to zero for complex numbers with real part equal to 1/2. (The so-called trivial zeroes occur at -2, -4, etc.)

3. [[P=NP]], which states that the amount of time it takes to check a possible answer to a certain kind of problem is equal to the amount of time it takes to find that answer.

4. The '''Hodge conjecture''', which identifies algebraic structures on certain kinds of complex manifolds.

5. The existence of infinitely differentiable solutions to the [[Navier-Stokes equations]], which would imply certain results about turbulence, an extremely common but not at all understood phenomenon.

6. The '''Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture''', which states there is a certain level of "simplicity" in the solutions to certain kinds of rational equations.

7. Investigation of the [[Standard Model|Yang-Mills existence and gap]]; specifically, whether Yang-Mills theory predicts particles with negative mass, and whether it contains any contradictions. Demonstrations of either negative-mass predictions or contradictions would provide clues as to how to build a more accurate theory.

[[Category:mathematics]]

Millennium problems

2010-08-15T19:33:39Z

JacobB: material is too advanced for this site, we won't have an article on this one

'''Millennium problems''' are seven unsolved problems in [[mathematics]] identified around the year 2000 as the most significant challenges known to modern mathematics. Only one has been solved, the [[Poincare conjecture]], by [[Grigori Perelman]].

==The Millennium problems==

1. The [[Poincare conjecture]], which states that if certain algebraic structures associated with a space are equivalent to those associated with a kind of sphere, then the space itself must be that kind of sphere.

2. The [[Riemann hypothesis]], which states that a certain function investigated by Bernhard Riemann in the 19th century is only equal to zero for complex numbers with real part equal to 1/2. (The so-called trivial zeroes occur at -2, -4, etc.)

3. [[P=NP]], which states that the amount of time it takes to check a possible answer to a certain kind of problem is equal to the amount of time it takes to find that answer.

4. The Hodge conjecture, which identifies algebraic structures on certain kinds of complex manifolds.

5. The existence of infinitely differentiable solutions to the [[Navier-Stokes equations]], which would imply certain results about turbulence, an extremely common but not at all understood phenomenon.

6. The [[Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture]], which states there is a certain level of "simplicity" in the solutions to certain kinds of rational equations.

7. Investigation of the [[Standard Model|Yang-Mills existence and gap]]; specifically, whether Yang-Mills theory predicts particles with negative mass, and whether it contains any contradictions. Demonstrations of either negative-mass predictions or contradictions would provide clues as to how to build a more accurate theory.

[[Category:mathematics]]

Millennium problems

2010-08-15T19:32:54Z

JacobB:

'''Millennium problems''' are seven unsolved problems in [[mathematics]] identified around the year 2000 as the most significant challenges known to modern mathematics. Only one has been solved, the [[Poincare conjecture]], by [[Grigori Perelman]].

==The Millennium problems==

1. The [[Poincare conjecture]], which states that if certain algebraic structures associated with a space are equivalent to those associated with a kind of sphere, then the space itself must be that kind of sphere.

2. The [[Riemann hypothesis]], which states that a certain function investigated by Bernhard Riemann in the 19th century is only equal to zero for complex numbers with real part equal to 1/2. (The so-called trivial zeroes occur at -2, -4, etc.)

3. [[P=NP]], which states that the amount of time it takes to check a possible answer to a certain kind of problem is equal to the amount of time it takes to find that answer.

4. The [[Hodge Conjecture]], which identifies algebraic structures on certain kinds of complex manifolds.

5. The existence of infinitely differentiable solutions to the [[Navier-Stokes equations]], which would imply certain results about turbulence, an extremely common but not at all understood phenomenon.

6. The [[Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture]], which states there is a certain level of "simplicity" in the solutions to certain kinds of rational equations.

7. Investigation of the [[Standard Model|Yang-Mills existence and gap]]; specifically, whether Yang-Mills theory predicts particles with negative mass, and whether it contains any contradictions. Demonstrations of either negative-mass predictions or contradictions would provide clues as to how to build a more accurate theory.

[[Category:mathematics]]

Secured transaction

2010-08-11T20:50:47Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804251 by SuperMaryandJoseph (Talk)

A '''secured transaction''' is one in which an obligation, taken on by [[contract]], is guaranteed as payable by [[collateral]]. Most commonly, a secured transaction (abbreviated, ''security'') refers to [[stock]] in a [[corporation]].

==Stock==
A security in the form of stock is "secured" by the fact that the obligation is guaranteed by the [[capital]] of the corporation: the person who owns the security actually owns a right to part of the assets of the corporation, should the stock become payable as such through [[bankruptcy]] or a [[merger]].

[[category:Economics]]
[[category:Corporations]]

Coriolis effect

2010-08-11T20:49:12Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804248 by SuperMaryandJoseph (Talk)

The '''Coriolis effect''' is the way in which the [[rotation]] of the [[earth]] bends the path of [[wind]]s, [[sea]] currents, and objects that fly through different latitudes.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Mike Crapo

2010-08-11T20:47:37Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804246 by SuperMaryandJoseph (Talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Mike Crapo
|image=Mcrapo.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Susan Crapo
|religion=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Idaho
|terms=January 3, 1999-Present
|preceded=[[Dirk Kempthorne]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Idaho
|district=2nd
|terms=January 3, 1993 – January 3, 1999
|preceded=[[Richard Stallings]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Mike Simpson]]
}}
}}
'''Mike Crapo''', born May 20, 1951 (age {{age|1951|5|20}}), is a [[Republican]] [[U.S. Senator]] and former [[U.S. Representative]] from [[Idaho]]. Crapo represented the 2nd District of Idaho as a Representative from 1993 to 1998. In 1999 he was elected [[U.S. Senator]] and has won every election since then. Over the course of the current Congress Crapo has voted with the majority of [[Republican]]s ninety percent of the time. <ref>http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c000880/</ref>Crapo graduated Cum Laude from [[Harvard Law School]] in 1977. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000880</ref> He was also a member of the [[Boy Scouts of America]] having earned the rank of [[Eagle Scout]] in his youth.

==External Links==
*[http://crapo.senate.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Michael_Crapo.htm Crapo On the Issues]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: United States Senators]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]
[[Category: Republican Party]]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Crapo, Mike}}
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Amnesia

2010-08-11T20:46:46Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804244 by SuperMaryandJoseph (Talk)

'''Amnesia''' (or psychogenic amnesia) is a dissociative disorder characterized by loss of memory of happenings the occurred during a certain time period, or loss of memory dealing with personal identity. Forms of amnesia include:

* [[retrograde amnesia]]
* [[anterograde amnesia]]
* [[selective amnesia]]

== Sources ==

Abnormal Psychology, Rosenhan & Seligman, 1984

[[Category:Mental health]][[Category: Psychology]]

Gregg v. Georgia

2010-08-11T20:45:56Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804241 by SuperMaryandJoseph (Talk)

In '''''Gregg v. Georgia''''', 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decided whether the [[death penalty]] is constitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

In 1976 Troy Leon Gregg was found guilty by the jury of a local court for armed robbery and murder and given the death sentence. The Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the punishment except on the grounds that it was a penalty for the robbery. Gregg challenged his unmoved death sentence saying that it was against the [[Eighth Amendment]], that no cruel or unusual punishments would be inflicted for criminal chastisements, and the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] that no State would deprive a citizen of life, liberty of property without due process of law.

Gregg appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] who ruled in a 7-2 decision, with only Justices [[William Brennan]] and [[Thurgood Marshall]] dissenting, that the death sentence did not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment as long as it was used on the proper grounds. Georgia's death penalty statute assures that it is given judiciously only after deep investigation into the case to make sure that its severity merits such strong punishment.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases", the other four being
* ''[[Proffitt v. Florida]]''
* ''[[Roberts v. Louisiana]]''
* ''[[Woodson v. North Carolina]]''
* ''[[Jurek v. Texas]]''

== Sources ==
*Author unknown, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gregg.html
*Author unknown, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_6257/
*Author unknown, http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/greggvgeorgia/
*Paul Soifer, "Important U.S. Supreme Court Cases", U.S. Government and Politics, pg 343
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Eighth Amendment]]

Abortion costs

2010-08-11T20:38:52Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804220 by Superjeebus (Talk)

'''Abortion costs''' include far more than the fee to the [[abortion]]ist. It includes the physical and emotional harm to the mother that often last a lifetime.

The '''abortion costs''' include the joy and money that the unborn child would have generated throughout his or her lifetime if the abortion had never occurred.

The '''abortion costs''' include the lack of friendship that both the mother and child could have brought to others in the absence of the abortion.

The '''abortion costs''' include the joy that the mother would feel upon having a child - instead, the mother would be faced with the guilt of having killed an unborn child.

The '''abortion costs''' include the loss of the financial support which a child must often provide to an elderly parent.

A researcher who has spent over a decade examining the economic impact of abortion finds that the approximately 50,5 million abortions in the U.S. since 1970 have cost the American economy $35 trillion. That comes in the form of lost productivity by having fewer workers contributing to society.<ref>http://lifenews.com/nat4440.html</ref>

Some unborn children may have grown to become the next [[Thomas Edison]], whose inventions brought unfathomable wealth and comfort to billions of people.
[[category:abortion]]

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

Fear

2010-08-11T20:38:46Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804222 by Superjeebus (Talk)

'''Fear''' is the state of being afraid. In some cases fear is the result of a lack of [[faith]].

Fear is usually considered a negative emotion, but it also has a positive [[Biblical]] meaning, connoting a mixture of awe and [[respect]]: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of [[wisdom]]" (Proverbs 9:10).

The Ancient [[Greek]]s personified fear as a minor deity called [[Phobos]]<ref>[http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/AresAttendants.html#Deimos theoi.com]</ref>, who gives his name to one of the [[satellite]]s of [[Mars]].

== References ==
<references/>
[[category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

American Civil War

2010-08-11T20:38:45Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804223 by ThesouthistheBEST (Talk)

{{American Civil War2
| image =1stva militia.jpg
| president =[[Abraham Lincoln]]
| president2 =[[Jefferson Davis]]
| vicepresident =[[Hanibal Hamlin]]
| vicepresident2 =[[Alexander Stephans]]
| secstate =[[William Seward]]
| secstate2 =Robert Toombs
| secwar =[[Simon Cameron]]
| secwar2 =Leroy Pope Walker
| secnavy =[[Gideon Welles]]
| secnavy2 =Stephan Mallory
| battles1 =None by end of April, 1861
| battles2 =[[Battle of Fort Sumter|Fort Sumter]]
| casualties1 =
| casualties2 =
}}
The '''American Civil War''' was one of the most traumatic experiences in the nation's history, in which a northern Union of states defeated a secessionist Confederacy of 11 southern slave states. The Civil War took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and the eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. In proportion to the total population, the Civil War was the most costly war fought in American history; 650,000 soldiers died in the war, two-thirds from disease and one-third from battle wounds. Many more were wounded but recovered.

For the social, political, economic and diplomatic history see [[American Civil War homefront]].

==Names==
The American Civil War has been called by other titles: the '''War Between the States''' was popular in the South before the 1970s, as is the informal title '''The Lost Cause'''. Officially, the United States government has called it the '''War of the Rebellion'''. The term "civil war" is most accurate, as it not only involved state against state from a common country, but the splitting of families as well; fathers would take sides against sons, and brother would fight against brother in many battles. In one sad case, Private Wesley Culp of the 2nd Virginia Regiment would die for the Confederacy at the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], killed on his father's farm. <ref>(TL 15, pp. 154-155)</ref>

==Prelude to war==
===Description of the North prior to 1860===
The chief characteristic of the North was its industrialization, which was rapid. Plants to manufacture metal goods sprang up almost as fast as they were invented, and after manufacture they spread quickly. One example was [[John Deere]], who in 1840 was manufacturing a new stainless-steel plow that he had invented barely three years before; by 1848 the plows were selling at the rate of a thousand a year. By 1857, Deere and his partner had expanded with the manufacture of so much farm equipment that the Middle West was made the country's greatest wheat-producing area. Farm equipment also included the first examples of steam-powered plows, and in 1859 there were contests as to who could build and deploy the best plow. One such plow at a contest at Freeport, [[Illinois]] caused an official committee to declare the machine could "plow 25 acres a day at 62.5 cents an acre" versus a normal manual charge of $2.50 an acre. (Nevins, pg 166-168)

Inventions were not limited to farming. [[Locomotive]]s, [[sewing machine]]s, [[shoe pegger]]s, [[reaper]]s, [[auger machine|auger]]s, [[turbine]]s, [[hydraulics]], [[power loom]]s, [[rotary press]]es, and more seemingly raced out of factories. [[Standardization]] was also an American invention, meaning replacement parts could be made and ordered to replace something broken within the machine instead of replacing the machine itself, as Connecticut's [[Samuel Colt]] first demonstrated with his new [[revolver]]. And to keep up with the exporting demand, Northern shipyards produced so many ships that they threatened to eclipse their chief rival, Great Britain. (TL 1, pg 18)

The North was also a melting pot of [[immigration]]. Northern cities were crowded and boisterous, and expanding rapidly. [[New York]]'s population had jumped from 515,000 to 814,000 in the 1850's; [[Chicago]]'s had gone from its 1837 incorporation with barely more than 4,000 people to over 112,000 by 1860. (TL 1, pg 16)

===Description of the South prior to 1860===
The South was largely agrarian. A Southern boast, "Cotton is king!" became very true by the 1850's, as cotton was grown, harvested, and shipped to market in vast quantities. The number of bales in 1849 was 2 million; by 1859 it had jumped to 5.7 million, amounting to more than half of all American exports and seven-eighths of the total amount of cotton in the world. (TL 1, pg 10)

Southern politics was controlled by owners of large [[slavery|slave]] plantations, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, a code of honor among equals with high levels of dueling. Proud parents, when their son came of age, would present him a handsome set of dueling pistols. The code called for a gallantry towards white women, while it was common to have many children by their black slaves; these children became slaves too.

Cotton was in high demand for textile factories in Europe and profits were high on plantations with 50 or more slaves. Most of the profits went toward purchase of new farmland (because cotton rapidly depletes the fertility of the soil) and more slaves, as well as cheap clothing for the slaves. Relatively little was spent on machinery or on luxury goods. More likely money went to gambling, and racehorses. High prestige occupations included plantation ownership, the law and medicine. Doctors were hired to keep the slaves healthy. There were very few colleges in the region, apart from a few small state schools and military academies. One [[Mississippi]] planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South "did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms." (TL 1, pg 12)

But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing [[rolled iron]], one which produced [[gunpowder]], and none capable of producing [[firearms]]; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in [[Massachusetts]] alone. More than 70% of all [[railroad]] mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.

===[[Slavery]]===
THOSE NIGGERS WERE OURS AND THOSE COMMIES HAD NO RIGHT. THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1[http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/images/robert_downey-tt.jpg]

===Political machinations and compromises===
The '''[[Missouri Compromise (1820)]]''' allowed for the entry of [[Maine]] into the Union as a free state, and [[Missouri]] as a slave state. It was further agreed that slavery was to be excluded from territory north of the 36°30′ parallel, or the remaining western territories. Before admission could be granted to Missouri a clause in the state's constitution provoked controversy: the exclusion of "free Negroes and mulattoes". Under [[Whig]] Henry Clay's influence in the U.S. Senate, an act of admission was passed, upon condition that the controversial [[exclusionary clause]] should "never be construed to authorize the passage of any law" impairing the privileges and immunities of free citizens. The compromise seemed deliberately ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to indicate that free blacks and mulattoes did not qualify as United States citizens, which would be put to direct test years later with a slave named [[Dred Scott]]. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html]

Another crisis arose from the request of the [[California]] Territory to be admitted to the Union as a [[free state]]; this was complicated by territory acquired in the southwest as a result of the [[Mexican War]] of 1848 and whether to extend slavery there. An omnibus bill drafted by [[Henry Clay]] called the '''[[Compromise of 1850]]''' tried to give satisfaction to the southern states in addition to California's admission: the settlement of the Texas-New Mexico border dispute; the slavery question open for voting via popular sovereignty in the Utah and New Mexico territories as they were organized; the end of slave trading in the District of Columbia; and tough requirements concerning [[runaway slave]]s. [http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850]

All five measures were enacted in September, 1850 as a result of the efforts and support of Democratic senator [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and Whig senator [[Daniel Webster]], and were accepted by moderates throughout the country. These measures may have had the effect of postponing Southern [[secession]] for another decade, but the seeds of discord were planted; the precedent of [[popular sovereignty]], championed by Douglas as the way for the public to vote whether or not they wanted slavery in their territories, led to the Kansas territory agitating for a similar provision. And the [[Fugitive Slave Act]] that was a part of the Compromise was so bitterly condemned that many moderates who had ignored slavery in the past became determined opponents to any extension of the institution into the territories. Many would risk jail rather than turn over runaway slaves to their owners as required by the new laws.

The '''[[Kansas–Nebraska Act]]''' (May 30, 1854), sponsored by Douglas, provided for the territorial organization of Kansas and Nebraska, using his principle the idea of popular sovereignty. Douglas had written the act in an effort to slow or halt the sectarianism over slavery's extension, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act merely increased the flames, and was attacked by [[free-soil]]ers and [[abolitionist]]s as a capitulation to those who supported slavery. The [[Whig Party]], ineffective in preventing it, largely disintegrated, and the Republican Party was born and soon became a viable political organization opposed to territorial expansion of slavery.

On the heels of the act a large number of people left Missouri and sought to influence elections in the Kansas Territory. "[[Border Ruffians]]", as they were called, entered Kansas and cast thousands of illegal votes resulting in a pro-slave government that Democratic president [[Franklin Pierce]] recognized, and continued doing so even after it was ruled illegitimate by a congressional investigative committee. The territory's actual residents set up their own legislature and created the [[Topeka Constitution]]; Pierce declared their endeavors an act of rebellion, and he went so far as to send in Federal troops to break it up.

===Bleeding Kansas===
[[Image:Brooks1.jpg|thumb|150px|right|THAT JEW DISERVED IT.]]
The Border Ruffians also stirred up violence between themselves and the Free-Staters, which became known as ''[[Bleeding Kansas]]'', beginning with the burning of a hotel and printing press in [[Lawrence, Kansas|Lawrence]] on May 21, 1856. Several days later an anti-slavery religious fanatic named [[John Brown]] and a few followers retaliated against five pro-slavery men, hacking them to death with [[broadsword]]s. By August thousands of men had formed into pro-slavery armies and marched into Kansas, expecting to force the territory to accept slavery. That same month a small, pitched battle occurred near the city of [[Osawatomie]]; 300 pro-slavery soldiers under the command of John W. Reid fought against Brown and 40 men. Brown lost the battle and Osawatomie was looted and burned. A fragile peace led by a new territorial governor would commence only when Brown and his men left the territory. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]

The day after the hotel in Lawrence was burned, a [[South Carolina]] congressman named [[Preston Brooks]], incensed over an anti-slavery speech given by Massachusetts Senator [[Charles Sumner]], walked onto the senate floor and beat him with a cane so severely that Sumner took three years to recover. <ref>(Bowman, pg 38)</ref>

===Dred Scott decision===
[[Dred Scott]] was owned by an Army physician who was transferred to the state of [[Wisconsin]], a free state, for several years before a transfer to Missouri, a slave state. Scott sued on the grounds that his residence in a free state where slavery was illegal made him free. After a series of unsuccessful lawsuits, Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where in 1856, Chief Justice [[Roger B. Taney]] delivered the majority opinion in ''Dred Scott vs. Sanford'':
*Blacks were not entitled to citizenship according to the U.S. Constitution.
*Blacks were not entitled to freedom under the Ordinance of 1797 while within the area of the Northwest Territory, of which Wisconsin was a part.
*The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibiting slavery north of Missouri and in free states was voided.
What the Dred Scott decision meant was any slave could be taken anywhere in the Union without fear that the owner of the slave would lose his property; a slave was private property, Taney stated, and according to the Fifth Amendment could not be taken from the owner without due process. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393]

The decision further deteriorated North/South relations, as a stunned North realized that free states had to support the institution of slavery.

===Emergence of Lincoln===
[[Image:Abraham-lincoln-cooper-union.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Abraham Lincoln, February 27, 1860.]]
[[Image:SDouglas.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Stephen A. Douglas]], around 1858.]]
The Kansas-Nebraska Act attracted much opposition in the country and led to splitting of the Democrats along the [[Mason-Dixon line]] (Douglas in the ensuing years tried desperately to keep it together) as well as the collapse of the Whig Party as an effective political organization. Many former Whigs, whose beliefs included the abolishment of slavery, flocked to the newly-formed [[Republican Party]]; their number would include a lawyer from Illinois who used the act to jump back into politics after a five-year absence, [[Abraham Lincoln]].

Lincoln was nominated for the Senate seat held by Douglas at the Republican State Convention in [[Springfield]] on June 16, 1858. The acceptance speech he gave has been called the "[[House Divided]]" speech, after the opening lines:

:''If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.'' [http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm]

August through October, 1858 saw seven Illinois towns witnessing the [[Lincoln-Douglas debates]]; Douglas the national figure defending the choice of voters whether to accept slavery or not, and the little-known Lincoln taking a stand against slavery on political, social, and moral grounds. Douglas never wavered from defending popular sovereignty, and he also played on the voters' fears of [[black integration]]. Stating blacks were inferior to whites, he appealed to racists by declaring that the government was "established upon the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men." (TL 1, pg 106). Lincoln on the other hand knew Douglas was in a war of his own with President [[Franklin Buchanan]]'s administration over acceptance of the Kansas constitution which barred slavery from the state, further alienating Southern Democratic support; the fear was that Douglas would be more appealing to moderate Republicans in the east. Lincoln's strategy therefore was to point out and use the vast difference between the moral indifference to slavery as embodied by Douglas's popular sovereignty, and the moral wrong that slavery actually was as embodied by Republican opposition to it. Douglas was, Lincoln insisted, a man who did not care whether slavery was "voted up or voted down."

Douglas retained his Senate seat, but by a narrow margin. Lincoln, however, won the debates, which thrust him into the national spotlight and put him on the road to the White House.

===John Brown at Harpers Ferry===
During the spring of 1858, John Brown held a meeting in Ontario between blacks and whites in which he stated his intentions to form a stronghold in the mountains between Virginia and Maryland for escaped slaves, even going so far as to adopt his own provisional constitution for the United States, which his group adopted. Several prominent Boston [[abolitionist]]s also gave him financial and moral support.

By summer, 1859, Brown was in a rented farmhouse in Maryland, across the river from the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia; with him was an armed band of sixteen whites and five blacks. On the night of October 16, he raided the armory and took some sixty of the area's leading men as hostages, and hoped that slaves would get word of his forming an "army of emancipation", escape, and fight with him to liberate their fellow slaves. For the next thirty hours he and his men held out against the local militia, but on the following morning a small force of United States Marines led by Army colonel [[Robert E. Lee]] quickly broke into the arsenal building, wounding Brown, and killing two of his sons and ten other followers. He was tried for murder, slave insurrection,  and [[treason]], and at the end he was convicted and hanged. The day he was to die he spoke no last words, merely handing a note to a guard on which he had written a last, prophetic statement: ''"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood."'' (TL 1, pp. 70-89)

Ever fearful of a slave insurrection, the South became tougher on its slaves. In Washington, Senator Jefferson Davis assumed, like many others, that the North was behind a conspiracy involving John Brown and others like him, aimed at abolishing slavery. He said in a speech:
:''The Government is no longer to intervene in favor of protection for our slaves. We may be robbed of our property, and the General Government will not intervene for our protection. When the Government gets into the hands of the Republican party, the arm of the General Government, we are told, will not be raised for the protection of our slave property. Then intervention in favor of slavery and [[slave States]] will no longer be tolerated. We may be invaded, and the Black Republican Government will stand and permit our soil to be violated and our people assailed and raise no arm in our defense. The sovereignty of the State is no longer to be a bar to encroachments upon our rights when the Government gets into Black Republican hands. Then John Brown, and a thousand John Browns, can invade us, and the Government will not protect us. ''[http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/brown/public_davis.cfm]

Many in the North held a different view. Brown was a martyr for abolition. The great orator [[Frederick Douglas]], a freed [[slave]] himself who was never afraid to confront the evils of the South's "peculiar institution", perhaps offered the best assessment of Brown:
:''His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was as the taper light, his was as the burning sun. Mine was bounded by time. His stretched away to the silent shores of eternity. I could speak for the slave. John Brown could fight for the slave. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for the slave.'' [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mfd&fileName=22/22002/22002page.db&recNum=9&tempFile=./temp/~ammem_rvc6&filecode=mfd&next_filecode=mfd&prev_filecode=mfd&itemnum=2&ndocs=32]

===1860 Presidential campaign===
[[Image:Electionlincoln.png|thumb|250px|right|Results of the 1860 Presidential Election. Due to the splitting of the country on the slavery issue, Lincoln won only 40% of the popular vote.]]
'' See [[United States presidential election of 1860]]''

In April, 1860, the Democratic Party held its convention in [[Charleston]], South Carolina, and the first platform placed for a vote is pro-slavery. When it is rejected in the course of voting, delegates from eight states in the South walk out; the remaining delegates are forced to adjourn when they cannot agree on a candidate to represent their party in the White House. (Bowman, pg. 40)

The Republicans hold their convention in Chicago in May, 1860, and Lincoln is nominated on the third ballot; he had to stand as a moderate on the slavery issue in order to gain the nomination. The party's platform insists on leaving slavery alone in the states where it already existed and against the spread of it into the territories. (Bowman, pg 40)

The Democrats reconvene their convention in Baltimore, Maryland, in June. Stephen Douglas is nominated for the presidency after the Southern delegates walk out again; they would hold their own convention later in Balitmore and nominate Vice-President John C. Breckenridge on a platform calling for the right to slavery. (Bowman, pg. 40)

The election centered on [[sectionalism]] and slavery, with each candidate doing little more than fanning the fears of the voters; Douglas would be the only one to travel the country personally, including all Southern states, but the split within his party was too great to make a difference. Lincoln went on to win the election, with 180 electoral votes, and 40% of the popular votes, none of which included a Southern state. Breckenridge placed second, winning 72 electoral votes, and 24% of the popular vote. John C. Bell, a candidate for the Constitutional Union Party (made up of former Whigs and former members of a nativist American party derisively called "[[Know Nothings]]"), took the states of [[Virginia]], [[Kentucky]], and [[Tennessee]]. Last was Douglas, barely managing Missouri, and three out of seven electoral votes from New Jersey. Southern leaders speak openly about secession within days of Lincoln's victory. (Bowman, pg 40; Nat. Atlas)

==The Secession==
[[Image:CMercury.GIF|thumb|150px|right|The Charleston ''Mercury'' newspaper printed this special broadside edition on December 20, 1860, just as news reached the editors that South Carolina had withdrawn from the Union.]]
[[image:President-Jefferson-Davis.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.]]
By December of 1860, both houses of Congress were working on proposals for compromises that would postpone the split they knew was coming. [[John J. Crittenden]] of the Senate committee introduced [[Crittenden Compromise|a proposal]] that would restore the Missouri Compromise by extending the northern boundary line across the continent to the Pacific, as well as preventing Congress or a Constitutional amendment from ever abolishing slavery. The [[Crittenden Compromise]], as well as the others, came down to a vote, but events would prove it was too late. Most of President Buchanan's cabinet, long angered at him (and his predecessor, Democrat Franklin Pierce) for not standing up to Southern demands which were tearing the country apart, walked out in protest; the latest outrage occurred when a delegation from South Carolina arrived at the White House and demanded the removal of Federal troops from the state (Buchanan rejects it). And President-elect Lincoln, although trying to be careful regarding the slavery issue, is insistent that slavery not be expanded into the territories. (Bowman, pg. 41)

On December 20, 1860, the South Carolina government votes to secede from the Union. Within days they begin war preparations, and seize Federal property. By the end of the month Major Robert Anderson spiked the cannon and removed the force stationed at Fort Moultrie in Charleston Harbor; nearby Fort Sumter is considered more defensible, and he places the force there. Aware of Anderson's condition, President Buchanan orders reinforcements sent, and he readied USS ''Brooklyn'' for that purpose in Norfolk; she would be replaced days later by General [[Winfield Scott]]'s preference for a non-Naval supply ship, ''Star of the West''.

On January 6, 1861, Florida troops take the Federal arsenal at [[Apalachicola]]. Fort Marion at St. Augustine is seized on the 7th. On the 9th, the ''Star of the West'' would be fired upon as she neared Charleston, causing her to turn around and head back to Norfolk. That same day public celebrations erupt in Mississippi as the state legislature votes 84-15 to secede.
*January 10, Florida votes 67-2 to secede.
*January 11, Alabama votes 69-31 to secede.
*January 19, Georgia votes 208-89 to secede.
*January 26, Louisiana votes 114-17 to secede.
*February 1, Texas votes 166-7 to secede.

On February 4th, a[[ peace convention]] meets in Washington, headed by former President [[John Tyler]]. The 131 members from 21 states (none from the South) work out a last, desperate compromise to save the Union. Speaking to the delegates, Tyler implores that "the eyes of the whole country are turned to this assembly, in expectation and hope." The convention ends in failure. (Bowman, pg. 45)

In Montgomery, Alabama, a provisional congress assembles and draws up a constitution by the end of the week; this document is essentially the United States Constitution, but mildly altered to include provisions for states' rights and protection for slavery:
*''The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.''
*''The Privilege of the Writ of [[Habeas Corpus]] shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No [[Bill of Attainder]] or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves, shall be passed.'' (Article 1, section IX)[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm]

On February 9, a surprised [[Jefferson Davis]] learns he has been elected provisional president of the newly-formed [[Confederate States of America]]; his vice-president is [[Alexander Stephens]] of Georgia. The two are considered moderate enough to please the legislatures of the remaining Southern states which have not yet seceded.

===Fort Sumter===
[[Image:Ftsum.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Fort Sumter under the Confederate flag, April 1861.]]
On the 4th of March, 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated as the nation's 16th president. In his address he reiterated his stance, and what he believed the stance of the nation should be, namely non-interference with slavery where it existed, and preventing slavery to spread in the territories, and above all was his stand to preserve the Union. The substance of what he said was conciliatory, but it also mentioned the obvious:

:''"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of [[civil war]]. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."'' [http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address1.html]

After communications between [[Fort Sumter]] and Charleston broke down over quietly surrendering the fort, Confederate General [[P.G.T. Beauregard]] knew reinforcing the fort was certain, and he may have been aware of a supply ship already on its way from Norfolk. He ordered the fort shelled on April 12, 1861; the honor of firing the first gun went to an ardent secessionist from Virginia, 66-year-old Edmund Ruffin. The fort surrendered on April 14 after 36 hours of bombardment, the single fatality of the engagement was to a Union soldier, killed when a cannon exploded as they were readying a final salute. Major Anderson and his force were immediately paroled, and were allowed to leave on the supply ship a few hours later.

The American Civil War had begun.

==Continuing articles==
*[[American_Civil_War:_1861|Continue to the events of the Civil War in 1861]]
*[[American_Civil_War:_1862|1862]]
*[[American_Civil_War:_1863|1863]]
*[[American_Civil_War:_1864|1864]]
*[[American_Civil_War:_1865|1865]]
*[[American_Civil_War:_Aftermath|Aftermath]]

==Sources==
For a guide to web sources see:
* Alice E. Carter and Richard Jensen. ''The Civil War on the Web: A Guide to the Very Best Sites'' (2nd ed. 2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Web-Sites-Completely-Revised/dp/084205135X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201965355&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

For an older short survey that is online and won the Pulitzer prize, see:
* Rhodes, James Ford. [http://www.bartleby.com/252/ ''History of the Civil War, 1861-1865 (1918)]
For the best recent survey that is online and won the Pulitzer prize, see:
* McPherson, James M. ''Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era'' (1988), 900 pages; [http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201965480&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=64327148 complete online edition]

For other recent surveys (not online) see:
* Fellman, Michael ''et al.'' ''This Terrible War: The Civil War and its Aftermath'' (2nd ed. 2007), 544 pages
* Donald, David ''et al.'' ''The Civil War and Reconstruction'' (2001); 700 pages

*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983), popular history
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 15 (''Gettysburg''), Time Inc, New York (1983), popular history
*Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union'' (1947-70), the most detailed history by a leading scholar
*Bowman, John S. (editor), ''The Civil War Almanac'' World Almanac Publications, New York (1985)

==Links==
====The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion====
*[http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html Official Records, from Cornell University]
*[http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/records/default.cfm?CFID=2953054&CFTOKEN=64723065&jsessionid=de3014246f1a3c587075TR Official Records, from eHistory.com]
====General====
*[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/civil_war_maps Library of Congress Civil War map collection]
*[http://www.civil-war.net The Civil War Homepage]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar The PBS/Ken Burns documentary]
*[http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar The History Place]
*[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/civilwar/civilwar.htm Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com Shotgun's home of the American Civil War]
*[http://www.cwc.lsu.edu US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University]
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society]
*[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/ Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln]

====Prelude to war====
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393 Full text of the Dred Scott v. Sandford]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html Missouri Compromise]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html Kansas-Nebraska act]
*[http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850 Compromise of 1850]
*[http://www.usconstitution.net/fslave.html Text of the Fugitive Slave Law]
*[http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/brown/public_davis.cfm text of speech by Sen. Jefferson Davis, Dec. 8, 1859]
*[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mfd:2:./temp/~ammem_rvc6:: ''Lecture on John Brown'' by Frederick Douglas]

====Emergence of Lincoln====
*[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's "House Divided" speech]

====1860 Presidential Campaign====
*[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]

====Secession====
*[http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/march/jefferson-davis-inauguration-speech.htm Jefferson Davis Inaugural speech, as reported in Harper's Weekly]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address1.html text of Licoln's first inaugural speech]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address2.html Lincoln's second inaugural speech]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm Constitution of the Confederate States]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Civil Wars]]
[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:The South]]
[[Category:Reconstruction]]

Sweet potato

2010-08-11T20:38:36Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804224 by Superjeebus (Talk)

The '''sweet potato''' is the [[tuber]] of a [[morning glory]] (''Ipomoea batatas'') native to the Americas. Despite being called a "potato," it is not related to the true [[potato]], which is a member of the family [[Solanaceae]].

The tuber can be white-skinned with a light yellow flesh, or red-skinned with a creamy orange flesh. The former type is usually called a "sweet potato," and the latter type is usually called a "yam." It is sweeter than a true potato, and is often used in making [[pie]]s, sweetened with [[honey]] and brown [[sugar]], or served mashed as a side dish.

[[Category: Vegetables]]

Presidential veto

2010-08-11T20:38:32Z

JacobB: Undo revision 804228 by Superjeebus (Talk)

A '''Presidential veto''' is made when the [[President]] refuses to sign a bill from [[Congress]] and it is not passed into law. The President must veto it within ten days of its arrival or the bill will pass. If Congress is not in session at the end of the ten days and the President has not signed it then it will be a [[pocket veto]] and the bill will not be passed.

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Law]]

Intelligence testing

2010-08-10T02:49:57Z

JacobB: Undo revision 803260 by Preacher101 (Talk)

'''Intelligence testing''' began in an organized way in the early 20th Century with the [[Stanford-Binet]] test. The purpose was to form an estimate of a person's aptitude before investing time and money in their education, in the belief that aptitude or intelligence was a fixed quantity.

At the time these tests were developed, medical science and psychology were
in their infancy. Ideas such as [[eugenics]] still had currency, and intelligence tests were used to weed out so-called "defectives".

Testers classified people as idiots, imbeciles, morons, normal, above average, and geniuses on a numerical scale based on [[mental age]]. For children, dividing the mental age by chronological age produces the [[intelligence quotient]] (IQ) used for placement in slow or rapid classes.

In the United States, intelligence tests were to classify recruits and draftees for service in World War II. The more technical jobs were assigned to men with higher scores. Sociologists also noted racial differences in IQ scores, and some supposed that these differences were inherent. A controversy over this matter has raged ever since.

Open questions for psychologists and sociologists focus on what produces differences in [[intelligence]], whether intelligence can be developed or stunted by upbringing and education, and why different [[race]]s or cultural groups have significantly different scores.

The two main reasons given are:
#that there may be inherent differences between the races
#that upbringing, education and social factors can skew the results

After nearly a century of IQ testing and [[educational reform]]s, some researchers have begun to assert that IQ can be influenced by the child's environment by as much as 30 points.<ref>3 weeks of intensive play of WFF 'N PROOF: The Game of Modern Logic increased average IQ scores by more than 20 points. [http://wffnproof.com/] </ref> See [[Educational games]].

==Liberal bias==

The field of intelligence testing has been acrimonious and contentious. Researchers such as [[Arthur Jensen]] and [[Charles Murray]] have been pilloried in the mass media, accused of maintaining views which different or even opposite of their actual views. <ref>Evolution advocate Gould portrays Murray as saying intelligence can be measured with a single number; Murray, of course, makes it clear in his book (as well as in a follow-up retort to Gould) that intelligence is too complex to be measured with a single number. </ref>

One professor had to come to Jensen's defense, after [[Stephen Jay Gould]] attacked him in print:

:I object to Gould's tendency to visit the alleged sins of early investigators on present day investigators. If Goddard, Brigham, and others once tended to view various human races as relatively superior or inferior in intelligence and therefore relatively worthy or unworthy, this does not mean that present-day investigators, like Jensen (1980) or Rushton (1995), are necessarily guilty of such views. In fact, from my personal acquaintance with Jensen and his publications, I can attest that he does not view the African race (if one accepts that it is a race) as in any way less worthy than other so-called races. [http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/carroll-gould.html]

[[Charles Murray]] said:

*As soon as anyone argues that racial differences in intelligence are authentic, not an artifact of biased tests, everyone decodes that as saying the differences are grounded in genes. It is a non-sequitur, but an invariable one in my experience. America's intellectual elites are hysterical about the possibility of black - white genetic differences in IQ.
*As you know, The Bell Curve actually took a mild, agnostic stand on the subject. Dick Herrnstein and I said that nobody yet knows what the mix between environmental and genetic causes might be, and it makes no practical difference anyway. The only policy implication of the black - white difference, whatever its sources, is that the U.S. should return forthwith to its old ideal of treating people as individuals.
*But how many people know this? No one who hasn't read the book. Everyone went nuts about genes, so much so that most people now believe that race and genes is the main topic of our book. [http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html]

The Bell Curve book is not the only controversial study on IQ among different races or groups of people. Danish professor [[Helmuth Nyborg]] has conducted studies of IQ which indicate [[Politically correct language|politically incorrect]] results such as: on average, white people have higher IQs than black people, and men have higher IQs than women. His latest research finds that on average, [[atheists]] have IQs about 5.8 points higher than people of [[faith]], prompting similar outrage among his critics, who claim that such results might be due to cultural biases.[http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/05/554043-professor-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers]

==External links==
*[http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html As the Bell Curves] - [[Charles Murray]] and [[Daniel Seligman]] - (Originally published in The National Review, December 8, 1997)

==Notes==
<references/>

[[category:psychology]]

Science

2010-08-10T02:49:47Z

JacobB:

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right]]
'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).
Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature. It is very important for an intelligent person to be able to distinguish real science from [[junk science]]

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is cabable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]] although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] had yet to be conceived.
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the development of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). However, in recent years, American scientists have deviated, and been much more [[atheism|atheistic]] as a group than the general public. <ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the inductive procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

[[Karl Popper]], considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and deductive methods and is characterised by the principle of falsification:

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumlated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''a priori'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrepect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Theistic evolution

2010-08-10T02:49:28Z

JacobB:

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] referred[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm] in address to the Pontifical Academy of Science to "theories of evolution" that could be "more than a hypothesis" which led many to conclude that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible. However, the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church as explained by several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Humani Generis''[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html] (promulgated by the Church in 1950) fall short of accepting any form of evolutionism in official Church teaching. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that God created all things ''ex nihilo'' (out of nothing) by His Word. No Catholic Christian can be compelled or required to accept evolutionism as a component of official Catholic Teaching. Inspite of this, many liberal theologians have advanced a heretical form of theistic evolutionism known as Modernism, which was condemned by the Church in several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Pascendi Dominici Gregis[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10PASCE.HTM]'' promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1907. This remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been criticized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how they believe God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.asa3.org American Scientific Affiliation], the largest organization of scientists who are Christians and who believe evolution to be true.

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

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Roman Catholic Church

2010-08-10T02:49:26Z

JacobB: Undo revision 803257 by Preacher101 (Talk)

{{Christianity}}
The '''Roman Catholic Church''' is a denomination of [[Christianity]]. It has a single leader, the [[Bishop]] of [[Rome]], also known as the [[Pope]]; the current Pope is [[Pope Benedict XVI|Benedict XVI]].

Members believe that it is the oldest [[Christian]] denomination in the world. It is certainly the largest, with more than 1.3 billion officially baptized adherents, or 17.4% of the world's population; over 64 million of these are in the [[United States]]. In recent years growth has been greatest in Africa and Latin America, while the numbers and influence in Europe have declined.

The Roman Catholic Church asserts that the Pope is the divinely-chosen successor of [[St. Peter]], the 'rock' ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 16:18) upon whom Jesus built his church. The Catholic Church consists of those Christians who are in full communion with the Pope, including "Uniate Catholics" in Eastern Europe who, strictly speaking, are not part of the "Roman" Church.

The term "Catholic Church" is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

The Roman Catholic Church has suffered several [[schism]]s over its history; most notably that with the [[Church of the East]] following the [[First Ephesian Council]], the several [[Oriental Orthodoxy|Oriental Orthodox]] churches following the [[Council of Chalcedon]], the [[Eastern Orthodoxy|Eastern Orthodox Church]] following the [[Great Schism]] of 1054, and the various [[Reformation]]s of the 16th century leading to the development of [[Protestantism]].

While the theological disagreements leading to the earlier schisms are not very sharp, the Protestants made a more radical break. Two of the principal issues of contention between Catholics and Protestants are ''[[sola scriptura]]'' (the Protestant doctrine that the Bible alone is the final authority for Christians, which denies the infallibility of [[Sacred Tradition]], the Pope, and the infallibility of ecumenical church councils) and ''sola fide'' (the doctrine, popularized by [[Martin Luther]], that faith alone, as opposed to faith and good works both, is sufficient for salvation).

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Catholics in the world.]]

==Organization==

The Pope and the the international leadership of the Church are based in [[Vatican City]], a sovereign elective monarchy and an enclave of [[Rome]] established by the 1929 [[Lateran Treaty]].

The Catholic Church has a complex hierarchy of clergy, including (in descending order of rank):

* The Pope
*[[Cardinal]]s
*[[Archbishop]]s
*[[Bishop]]s
*[[Abbot]]s
*[[Monsignor|Monsignori]]
*[[Archpriest]]s
*[[Priest]]s
*[[Deacon]]s

The key roles are played by the Pope and the bishops, and the question of whether secular governments should play a major role in ecclesiastical appointments has been a major issue for centuries. The [[Investiture Controversy]] in the [[Holy Roman Empire]] was over this question, as was the dispute between [[Gallicanism]] and [[ultramontanism]] in France.

==Teachings==
[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|[[Pope John Paul II]] reigned 1978-2005]]
The chief teachings of the Catholic church are:

* God’s objective existence.
* God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer).
* The Trinity.
* The divinity of Jesus.
* The immortality of the [[soul]] of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell.
* The resurrection of the dead.
* The historicity of the [[Gospels]].
* The divine commission of the church.

The Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The very physical and spiritual body and blood of Christ are believed to be present in the Eucharist, [[Transubstantiation|the bread and wine being Jesus himself]], replacing the material of bread and wine. Another essential element of Catholic practice is the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the other saints. Catholics do not worship Mary or other saints but ask them to pray to God on their behalf. This is termed "intercession."

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and the Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term "Catholic" is frequently applied as an adjective meaning, "pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church." [[Protestantism|Protestant]]s take exception to this use, as the defined meaning of "catholic" (the adjective) is "universal" and comes from the Greek word Katholikos. The Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] and [[Anglican Communion]] also refer to themselves as the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic</ref> Previously Protestants used terms such as "popish," "papist," or "Romanist" in that capacity, but these are now considered pejorative and not so widely used.

The Church teaches respect for all human life. It opposes the practices of contraception, abortion,<ref>Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html</ref> euthanasia and (in most cases) capital punishment.<ref> John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (1995) http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM</ref> The Church is in favor of social justice and "the common good."<ref> Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (2009) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html</ref> Some Catholics take this idea further, espousing a "[[consistent life ethic]]," under which ''all'' killing is said to be unlawful. This position entails [[pacifism]] and (in some cases) [[vegetarianism]].

== History ==

===Early Church===

The original Christian community was founded by Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was the most notable of the Early Christian missionaries. Christians were subjected to persecution, first under [[Nero]] in A.D. 64 and again, more severely, under the emperors [[Domitian]], [[Marcus Aurelius]],[[Decius]], [[Diocletian]], ''etc.'', in the second and third centuries, with the penalty for being Christian ultimately being death.

After almost 300 years of persecution against the Church failed to stop the growth of Christianity, the Emperor [[Constantine I]] had a religious experience and, by the [[Edict of Milan]] issued in the early fourth century, legalized Christianity. Going to war with the co-Emperor of the east [[Lucinius]] over his continued persecution of Christians, Constantine won and became sole Emperor. The age of persecution was over.
[[Image:Christians.jpg|thumb|450px]]

In 380, Emperor [[Theodosius I]] accepted Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]].

=== Fathers of the Church ===

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]], and has been the most influential of all theologians.

Other important early theologians include [[St. Ambrose]], Bishop of [[Milan]] from 374 to 397, and especially [[St. Augustine]].

===Barbarians converted===

Until the early fourth century AD Christianity enjoyed mixed reception in the Roman Empire and Christians were frequently subject to persecution. In the 310s Christianity became legalized and shortly thereafter became officially recognized by Constantine. In the following years Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular became increasingly powerful in the Roman Empire, although [[Arianism]] remained strong. In 380 AD, [[Theodosius I]] established the Catholic Church as the official religion of the Roman Empire and proscribed the former pagan practices. There was a brief [[pagan]] revival in the West under the usurper [[Eugenius]], but that was brought to an end with his death. While the Empire continued to decline, Catholicism and Christianity continued to grow both among those directly under the Empire and among the barbarians until Rome was sacked by [[Alaric]] in 410. Alaric was an Arian Christian.

After the collapse of the Western Empire, the Catholic Church became the most powerful political and religious force in Latin-speaking Europe and by the 8th century had achieved near total religious dominance with the removal of the last significant Arian groups.

Aggressive missionary activities accomplished the conversion of almost all the pagan tribes in Europe by the year 1000 AD. [[Lithuania]] was the last pagan country in Europe to be converted, in 1387.

=== Great Schism ===

After numerous disputes between eastern and western churches that became more pronounced from the ninth century onwards, the Church underwent the [[Great Schism]] in 1054 that divided it into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox Church]]. Both traced their roots to the time of Jesus, but the Eastern Orthodox Church did not acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, only willing to recognize him as "first among equals."

The schism's causes were not purely religious, but cultural and geographic elements also played a role. Although later attempts at reconciliation occurred, such as at the [[Council of Basel]], the two remain separate to this day although both accept many of each others sacraments.

=== Late Middle Ages ===

The Crusades, a series of religious wars instigated by the Church against the Muslims and other groups in the Holy Land, began in 1092 and continued until the end of the 13th century. Despite the focus on removing the Holy Land from Muslim control, the Crusaders also massacred Jews and sacked Constantinople.

During this time period, the [[Inquisition]]s started and would continue through the Protestant Reformation. The medieval inquisition focused on rooting out Cathars, while the later inquisitions such as the [[Spanish Inquisition]] focused on people who were believed to be secretly practicing [[Judaism]] or [[Islam]] following the [[Alhambra Decree|legally mandated]] conversion to Christianity of all Jews and Muslims remaining in Spain.

===Reformation and Counter-Reformation===

In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] began the [[Protestant Reformation]] with a public protest against the sale of [[indulgences]]. It grew into a movement that covered a wider variety of issues. Eventually, Protestants rejected the notions of saintly intercession, the authority of the pope, and all of the sacraments except [[Baptism]] and [[Communion]]. This eventually led to a series of religious wars in [[Europe]] and the Protestant-Catholic split became one of the dominant themes in European events until modern times.

===1815 to 1914===

====Pius VII====

Pius VII (1800-23) was stripped of powers by [[Napoleon]] but made a striking comeback after Napoleon's fall in 1815. Pius VII was a deeply religious Benedictine, and a theologian; he lived simply and avoided nepotism. His unusually able Secretary of State Cardinal Consalvi won the restoration to the Pope of most of the territories in Italy which Napoleon had seized. He reinvigorated numerous monastic orders and helped create new societies for men and women, especially those engaged in teaching and missionary work.
Most important was the restoration of the Jesuits in 1814; they had been suppressed in most countries. They grew larger and even more influential in the 19th century.

====Conservatism====

After 1800 the Papacy became the center of conservatism in Europe in reaction against the socialism of the French Revolution and its supporters. The Papacy recognized that throughout Europe millions of peasants and poor folk were devoted to the saints and traditions of the Church; the Popes responded energetically by promoting new Marian devotions (such as the rosary). Rome had fallen into disrepair and Pius VII began the restoration of the city's artistic glories, an enterprise that continues into the 21st century. <ref> Kelly (1999); Duffy (2006); Latourette (1958) vol 1. </ref>

====Ultramontane vs Gallican====

The "ultramontane" tendency in the Church centralized more power and authority in the Papacy. It was opposed by the "[[Gallican]]" tendency, especially in France, to give national churches more control over their affairs. The ultramontine forces generally won out, especially with the promulgation of [[Papal Infallibility]] at the First Vatican Council in 1870. The ultramontane forces cited the old doctrines of [[Robert Bellarmine]] (1542-1621) and [[Francisco de Suárez]] (1548-1617) to bolster the papal claim to absolute power in spiritual matters.

Gallicanism in France was damaged by the rise of ultramontanism in the 1850s and the devotional revolution that shifted piety to devotions sponsored by Rome. Gallicanism was officially suppressed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, which established the paramount authority of the pope as a matter of dogma. However informal manifestations of Gallicanism continue in some countries, especially China. In Canada, the Irish clergy fought for ultramontanism against the French clergy, who were Gallican. The [[Catholicism in Ireland|Irish]] won out with the support of the Vatican.

After Vatican II, 1962-65, the multiple and often confused controversy among Catholics over papal authority and infallibility largely ended, though some significant degree of opposition to it remains.<ref>such as by historian Garry Wills, author of ''Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit'' (Sophia Institute Press, 2003), and liberal theologian Hans Kung, author of ''Infallible?: An inquiry'' (1970)</ref><ref>David Carlin, ''The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America'',‎ appendix 2</ref><ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/vatican.htm Raymond Taouk, ''What are Catholics to think of Vatican II?'']</ref>

This dissent is mainly manifested in disagreement with Roman Catholic teaching on birth control and abortion, which yet remains strong.<ref>[http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/014/Infallibility%20in%20Ethical%20Perspective%20By%20John%20M.%20Swomley_014_26_.htm John M. Swomley, ''Infallibility in Ethical Perspective Christian Ethics Today], Issue 014 Volume 4 No 1 February 1996</ref> <ref>56% of U.S. Catholics said that the pope is not infallible "when he teaches on matters of morals, such as birth control and abortion"; 80% of Catholics believed it is possible to disagree with the pope on official positions on morality and still be a good Catholic. Time/CNN nationwide poll of 1,000 adults, conducted by Yankelovich Partners, Sept. 27-28, 1995</ref>

====Facing Modernity====

Despite dire predictions, the Church adapted to modernity in its own way and increased its role in people's lives in the 19th century. The Church escaped irrelevance by using the same means as emerging nation-states: establishing more administrative and doctrinal centralization in Rome; establishing a homogeneous culture, aided especially by universal use of Latin; promoting new rites and folk devotions, especially those focused on Mary and other favored saints; promoting pilgrimages to holy sites; encouraging clergy to endorse and lead regional nationalist movements that focused on historic languages and cultures; creating many new teaching orders and establishing Catholic schools and colleges; supporting intellectuals and publishing houses; enhancing papal power; and cultivating an image of theological, canonical, and moral superiority. Of special importance was the missionary activity, based especially in Germany, that was in competition with Protestant missions in China, India, Africa and other non-Christian lands. The Jesuits proved highly adept at promoting the Papal cause. The Pope thereby became less of a figurehead and more of a true ruler.

There was internal dissent among some Catholic intellectuals, such as historian [[Lord Acton]] in Britain and theologian Ignaz von Döllinger in Germany, who opposed the declaration of the dogma of papal infallibility. This also caused further schisms, with breakaway groups centering around the Archbishop of [[Utrecht]] to form the [[Old Catholic Church]].

=====Syllabus of Errors=====

The [[Syllabus of Errors]] of Pope [[Pius IX]] in 1864 rejected the liberal doctrines of the modern world.<ref> see text at [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm]</ref> It denounced pantheism, naturalism, nationalism, indifferentism, socialism, communism, freemasonry, theological rationalism, [[separation of church and state]], removal of [[public school]]s from Church control, and other modern views. The Pope claimed for the Catholic Church total control over science and culture. The liberals viewed this as a declaration of war by the Church on modern civilization. Its repercussions within France, the U.S., Britain and other countries were resounding, nearly destroying the liberal Catholic movement and furnishing a powerful weapon to the anticlerical faction, or (in the U.S.) to anti-Catholic Protestants. Opponents stressed the Papacy had become intolerant and medieval and largely political in nature.<ref> Latourette (1958) vol 1 ch. 6</ref>

====Facing Liberalism====

Burns (1990) takes a sociological perspective on the Papacy's long battle with liberalism. He shows how the papacy, in reaction to the rise of the liberal states of the 19th and 20th centuries, gradually reformulated Catholic ideology within the limited autonomy they possessed and carefully subordinated social and political issues to more purely religious and moral issues as they constructed an ideological opposition to liberalism.

In Germany in the 1840s the ultramontane movement used mass meetings and pilgrimages to combat the growth of liberalism and modernism. However the anti-clerical press attacked these mass meetings, and in response a large number of Catholic newspapers emerged in Germany starting in the 1840s. To ensure their own survival, these newspapers championed the liberal idea of [[Freedom of the press|press freedom]]. In addition, local clubs were established to mobilize the Catholic working class. These clubs tried to end discrimination against ordinary Catholics by working to establish freedom of religion and freedom of thought and by entering the electoral process. With the unification of Germany in 1870, the new nation faced the problems of consolidation, one of which was secularization. The laws dealing with secularization opened a political battle between Bismark and the Protestants and liberals on one side, and the Catholics on the other, called the "[[Kulturkampf]]." The Catholics organized their own political parties and protected their interests by voting as a bloc into the 1930s, when the Nazis closed down all other parties.

====Freemasons====

In many countries the Church faced off against the Freemasons, a secret society that was politically active in numerous countries. The Papacy coordinated a counterattack. For example in Brazil, the religious question in the 1870s centered on the Masonic controversy and the struggle between regalist and ultramontane forces. One method of counterattack was to found Catholic universities. Thus Mgr. Ignace Bourget, second bishop of Montreal, Canada, founded Laval University, as a Catholic reaction to a liberal and secularist outburst in Quebec. Bourget said the university would be the principal instrument for "wresting the elite from the clutches of liberalism."

====Women====

A spiritual revolution took place in the 19th century, moving individuals to personal piety. There was a much greater emphasis on the role of Mary, and a greatly increased involvement of women; the number of sisters and nuns increased from 20,000 to 400,000 between 1815 and 1914.

Camp (1990) traces the treatment of women. In the late 19th century the papacy began to revise its public teachings about the proper role of women in the Church and society. From Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) to Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), papal social pronouncements reveal an evolution in attitudes toward a woman's proper "place" from the view that women are passive subordinates to men in all spheres of life to the current teaching that lay and clerical women are equal but complementary partners with men in religious, political, economic, and social endeavors. However, the papacy has remained firm in the conviction that ordination to the priesthood is for men only.

====Social changes====

Urbanization brought millions of peasants out of the villages to industrial cities, where church facilities were few.

====Arts====

[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|230px|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
The arts provided a refuge from modernity in the form of a nostalgic aesthetic. Church architecture saw the revival of the medieval [[Gothic]] style. Romantic literature, for example by Chateaubriand, helped inspire a Catholic revival. In music, Catholic churchgoers were likely to be exposed to an officially sponsored revival of ''a cappella'' singing in the manner of Palestrina. The rapid development of symphonic and operatic forms affected sacred music, resulting in many masses, requiems, and te deums for large orchestra and chorus, sometimes even composed by skeptics such as Berlioz and Verdi.

====Politics====

In politics, as democracy and popular government spread, religious motivations moved people into one party or the other. The parties in such battles tended to be different depending on the religious configuration of a given country. In Catholic countries such as France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, sharp confrontations emerged between clericals and anti-clericals; in countries with mixed Catholic and Protestant populations such as Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Britain and the U.S., political splits occurred along confessional lines. In the U.S. the great majority of the Catholics -- led by the Irish--became [[Democratic Party|Democrats]]. In Germany the Catholics formed their own Center party to fight off attacks from the Protestants, such as the [[Kulturkampf]].

The British attempt to impose Protestantism on Ireland not only fueled the Catholic revival there but also contributed to its spread via emigration – not only to the U.S. and Canada, but also to Australia, New Zealand, and England itself, increasing the Catholic population in all of these. Quickly the Irish took control of the Church in each country and created a new system of schools, colleges, hospitals and charities. The Poles, having lost their nation state in the 1790s, turned to an intense religiosity, that preserved national identity, and which they carried with them to industrial centers in the U.S. and Germany; in the U.S., some Poles, frustrated with the Irish control of the Church, founded the schismatic [[Polish National Catholic Church]].

===20th century===

====Vatican II====

[[File:John-23.jpg|right|thumb|270px|[[Pope John XXIII]] reigned 1958-63]]

The "Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican" (called [[Vatican II]]), was called by [[Pope John XXIII]] and was in session from 1962 to 1965. It dramatically modernized and transformed church policies, with major changes to official theology and liturgy. Liturgical changes included the introduction Mass in local languages instead of Latin. Theologically, the council deemphasized somewhat the centrality of Mary while also adding a new emphasis on individual and personal holiness. It asserted the Church's support for [[freedom of religion]], declared that the Jews were not guilty of [[deicide]], and recognized the possibility of salvation for Jews, Muslims, and Protestants.

Reactions among Catholics to Vatican II fall into three camps. "Liberal" Catholics, drawing on the established Catholic belief in the "journeying" nature of the Church, see Vatican II and the new period that it marked in Catholic history as representing a significant advancement in our understanding of the divine revelation contained in the Gospels which justifies major changes in Catholic belief and practice. "Conservative" Catholics (including the recent popes) hold that the decrees of the Council, properly understood, are wholly in line with the historic Catholic faith, and that they should not be used as an excuse for unwarranted innovations. "Traditional" (or "[[Traditionalist Catholicism|traditionalist]]") Catholics regard the teachings of Vatican II as problematic, or even as heretical, and tried to operate churches using the old liturgies.

==Abuse scandal==

Widespread controversy erupted in 2001 over past abuse of teenage boys by some Catholic priests involving inappropriate sexual contact, which was covered up by the bishops as they moved the offending priests to new positions. For the most part the Catholic Church quietly cleaned this up internally in the mid 1980s; the vast majority of allegations of abuse that came to light in the 2000s occurred before this time period. Although almost no priests were involved in the abuse, the damage that could be done by even a small number of priests if not properly checked was significant. It was a case of breaking vows, including vows of celibacy, and committing acts of [[homosexuality]] which are condemned by the Church.<ref>http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72992710807995&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=98cf251&FORM=CVRE4</ref>. There were no reports of girls as victims, or nuns as perpetrators.

The stereotype resulting from the scandal portrayed the priests involved as [[pedophilia|pedophiles]], though most of them were instead [[pederasty|pederasts]] who preyed upon post-pubescent teenage boys.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E2D71E38F931A15750C0A9649C8B63</ref>

Due to the scandal, the U.S. Catholic Church has paid out $2.6 billion in abuse claims. The Los Angeles diocese settled claims by 500 victims for $660 million. Similar scandals hit the Catholic Church in other countries, notably Ireland.

== See also ==

*[[Cafeteria Catholic]]
*[[Catholic views on creationism‎]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Vatican City]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://www.Vatican.va The Vatican]
*A digital version of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''].
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==Further reading==
* Bokenkotter, Thomas. ''A Concise History of the Catholic Church'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Catholic-Church/dp/0385516134/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241119912&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Brown, Peter. ''The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity 200-1000 AD'' (2002), 640pp
* Chadwick, Owen. ''A History of the Popes, 1830-1914.'' (1998), 616pp; a standard recent history. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=12355195 online edition],
* Coppa, Frank J. ''The Modern Papacy since 1789.'' Longman, 1998. 296 pp.
* Daniel-Rops, Henri. ''The Church in the Eighteenth Century'' (1964)
* Daniel-Rops, Henri. ''The Church in an Age of Revolution'' (1965).
* Holland, Joe. ''Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age 1740-1958.'' Paulist Press, 2003. 404 pp.
* Kung, Hans. ''The Catholic Church: A Short History'' (2003), by a leading Catholic scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-History-Library-Chronicles/dp/0812967623/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241119912&sr=8-15 excerpt and text search]
* Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries'' 5 Vol'' (1958), a detailed history of Christianity 1800-1950 by a fair-minded Protestant scholar. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101463833 vol 1 online edition]
* Logan, F. Donald. ''A History of the Church in the Middle Ages.'' 2002. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102805754# online edition]
* Mullett, Michael A. ''The Catholic Reformation,'' (1999), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102890994 online edition]
* O'Toole, James M. ''The Faithful: A History of Catholics in America'' (2008) [http://books.google.com/books?id=BFlBzSAVW6kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:The+intitle:Faithful+intitle:A+intitle:History+intitle:of+intitle:Catholics+intitle:in+intitle:America&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Pastor, Ludwig von. ''History of the Popes From the Close of the Middle Ages'', (1894-1930), 16 vol, older Catholic history [http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&lr=&q=pastor+history+popes&as_brr=1 online from books.google.com]
* Ullmann, Walter. ''A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages,'' (2002), 393pp, [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107602176 online edition]
* Schreck, Alan. ''The Compact History of the Catholic Church'' (2009)
* Vidmar, John. ''The Catholic Church through the Ages: A History'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-through-Ages-History/dp/0809142341/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241119912&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
===Reference===
* ''New Catholic 'Encyclopedia'' (1967), complete coverage of all topics by Catholic scholars
* ''Catholic Encyclopedia,'' (1913) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ online edition] complete coverage by Catholic scholars; the articles were written about 100 years ago
* Coppa, Frank J., ed. ''Great Popes through History: An Encyclopedia.'' (2002). 600 pp.
* Kelly, J.N.D. ''The Oxford Dictionary of Popes'' (1988). 349pp; scholarly short biographies; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54850171 online edition]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Catholic Church| ]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Christian Denominations]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-08-10T00:38:33Z

JacobB: /* General reply to Brits, if any, who commented above */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''
----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::Should we correct that number in the article? [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 22:41, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Please improve as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::The user who added that ([[User:DrewDice]]) was subsequently blocked for prevarication. The one-million figure Andy added seems about right in my searches. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::Before you round the number down, consider rounding it up. [http://www.google.com/search?q=anti+Christian&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&prmd=inl&sa=X&ei=eQldTN2RGIWBlAeU8uCbCA&ved=0CBEQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:,cd_max:] The answer is 74.6 million. Google anti Christian with no quotes, no hyphens, English language only. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:24, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a "1-2-4-8" geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Definition by example seems best here. Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list. You wouldn't request a definition for "List of Words beginning with G", so why are you demanding a definition for "Conservative term"? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you? We're not using them in any aberrant way. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. "List of Words beginning with G" is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what "conservative" means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the "excellent scholarship presented in this essay" smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a "conservative word" was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::If liberals are so devoid of intelligence or honesty to clearly understand the simple application of an adjective to a noun, then why should we dumb down our article just for their pea-sized brains? --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:57, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

"AmandaBunting" (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk. We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology. It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you. Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
-

== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

: "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

== Research method ==

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Suggestion? ==

What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==

===Selection bias===
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: 

<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Probability</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>1/15</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>2/15</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>4/15</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>8/15</td></tr></table>

For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

: Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===An unbiased test===
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. 

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>

: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.

:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===Table of random words===
{|class="collapsible collapsed"
!500 words
|-
|1 economics
2 storeroom
3 hunkers
4 sufficing
5 coffeehouses
6 stalagmites
7 therapy
8 sanitation
9 cheapskates
10 Caesareans
11 ringmaster
12 acclimate
13 penology
14 verandah
15 caregivers
16 fed
17 disengaged
18 whitecaps
19 dissertation
20 consignment
21 chainsaws
22 speeds
23 kinfolk
24 caribous
25 hobbyists
26 coefficients
27 protuberance
28 morphemes
29 Caroline
30 millionaires
31 recyclable
32 wilts
33 unreconstructed
34 chandeliers
35 palomino
36 joysticks
37 volleys
38 cajoling
39 bucksaws
40 spars
41 portaged
42 acoustically
43 humanize
44 hybridize
45 tipsters
46 overprices
47 marksmanship
48 fezes
49 depressant
50 auctioned
51 flamethrower
52 biking
53 artistic
54 agribusiness
55 jottings
56 pedicures
57 Cordilleras
58 slots
59 recording
60 unrealistic
61 rationalism
62 peacekeeping
63 aromatherapy
64 jackknife
65 champagne
66 horrendous
67 Quasimodo
68 excavator
69 chowders
70 arts
71 configure
72 civic
73 telegraphy
74 sweepstakes
75 euphoric
76 strategy
77 subgroup
78 shouting
79 gusher
80 telemarketing
81 glucose
82 booties
83 preponderated
84 manures
85 outspokenness
86 wiener
87 embeds
88 amped
89 sternums
90 empathy
91 cognomina
92 colitis
93 kimono
94 retched
95 singletons
96 megaphoned
97 respelled
98 Hindus
99 squiggle
100 irrigates
101 reconstructions
102 deceptiveness
103 colonialism
104 missioned
105 dyes
106 maladroit
107 tents
108 turfs
109 generalization
110 seamanship
111 duffers
112 scruffier
113 pollinate
114 bobcats
115 achieved
116 exerted
117 flapjack
118 Independence
119 lucidity
120 indenturing
121 enumerable
122 disenchanted
123 flashback
124 trilogies
125 colloquially
126 Colby
127 killjoys
128 lifelines
129 hydrotherapy
130 psychoanalysis
131 memorializing
132 bronchitis
133 rink
134 automobiles
135 dandy
136 schoolmarms
137 debriefing
138 glands
139 oceanography
140 jetted
141 hurdler
142 dependability
143 tactician
144 rotor
145 liturgies
146 quantified
147 wests
148 quitters
149 ocarinas
150 betting
151 apathetically
152 smoggier
153 Xenia
154 saris
155 dupe
156 voodooism
157 optimize
158 particularization
159 funereally
160 masterminding
161 capsizes
162 orchestrates
163 uncivilized
164 emphasized
165 skyrocket
166 plagiarist
167 politicoes
168 streptococci
169 pantsuits
170 waving
171 decontaminates
172 teensy
173 taxonomy
174 proselytizes
175 drollness
176 expectoration
177 legmen
178 modulations
179 diploma
180 Brandy
181 radar
182 pushiest
183 drill
184 lush
185 temperas
186 musicals
187 wheal
188 horticulture
189 cancan
190 jocularity
191 caramels
192 bipolar
193 sophisticated
194 injudicious
195 emulsion
196 ignore
197 cannonballed
198 swastika
199 overachievers
200 rubella
201 chuckhole
202 ersatz
203 breeziness
204 climaxes
205 explosiveness
206 empathizing
207 jumps
208 secularizing
209 sequoia
210 bibliography
211 prettying
212 bouldered
213 authorship
214 vocalizing
215 tarpons
216 camisoles
217 cowpox
218 tans
219 breathable
220 machines
221 tycoon
222 flicking
223 squishes
224 semiprofessional
225 feline
226 seedling
227 hankie
228 entitlement
229 abscissa
230 derisive
231 romance
232 overprice
233 beads
234 stipple
235 Kitty
236 jewelled
237 mascaraed
238 dissociation
239 moments
240 Spica
241 quaking
242 legislation
243 wobbly
244 scorches
245 books
246 gastrointestinal
247 finked
248 renegotiates
249 flautists
250 wrongheadedness
251 allergenic
252 squishiest
253 kickoffs
254 mecca
255 disses
256 woodwinds
257 discotheques
258 replacements
259 tomahawks
260 voluptuaries
261 salon
262 eliciting
263 resale
264 soporific
265 dosage
266 smokestacks
267 rationalists
268 subsumed
269 futzes
270 minutemen
271 stingrays
272 marathoner
273 vagina
274 propellers
275 rooftops
276 sensationalist
277 bluejackets
278 individualize
279 hyphenating
280 Xanthippe
281 federated
282 amortize
283 airfare
284 hyphenates
285 syncopates
286 sermonizing
287 biochemistry
288 babysat
289 yellows
290 riskier
291 cassocks
292 stated
293 Cordoba
294 Slinky
295 eventfully
296 nines
297 blabbermouths
298 fraternizes
299 bucked
300 Boolean
301 bivalve
302 ricochetted
303 toys
304 toted
305 commissars
306 cushioning
307 redeploy
308 poignancy
309 variegating
310 snuffbox
311 stoplight
312 biochemists
313 bicycling
314 disenfranchised
315 nosing
316 enlightenment
317 knockout
318 resurgent
319 pediments
320 skyscrapers
321 treatments
322 polio
323 flashbulbs
324 empower
325 rounding
326 pervasive
327 humped
328 oxymora
329 freebie
330 passageway
331 barfing
332 motorists
333 triglycerides
334 Mayans
335 stopped
336 kidnapper
337 pensioning
338 foreclosures
339 Yankees
340 manifestoing
341 predictor
342 Delawares
343 librettos
344 panoply
345 angstroms
346 jodhpurs
347 backpedal
348 sugars
349 preclude
350 unravelling
351 Lilliput
352 motivator
353 enslavement
354 pencilling
355 flukey
356 amoral
357 depository
358 unemotional
359 stumpy
360 cartons
361 gal
362 ignitions
363 malingered
364 spotlighted
365 photographic
366 abnegated
367 dashing
368 atrocious
369 inanities
370 derricks
371 mountaineer
372 inseminate
373 sacrosanct
374 modernize
375 specializations
376 obliging
377 heckles
378 baccalaureates
379 bluebirds
380 lengthiest
381 octets
382 physiotherapist
383 disorganizing
384 toffees
385 unfurling
386 abnegate
387 bathrobe
388 socked
389 crepe
390 polkas
391 overwriting
392 punned
393 platoons
394 infrared
395 ensuring
396 decimate
397 baggiest
398 plungers
399 trampolining
400 centigram
401 Topsy
402 epochal
403 boogies
404 showrooms
405 pianofortes
406 Orphic
407 logbooks
408 amphibious
409 rapprochements
410 terms
411 Kalmyk
412 petering
413 geocentric
414 stills
415 ethnologist
416 exec
417 flairs
418 likableness
419 rods
420 melange
421 graduated
422 ante
423 voluminously
424 impaled
425 cognacs
426 yups
427 comfiest
428 strychnine
429 subsoiled
430 conics
431 Salish
432 windsocks
433 rutabaga
434 vacuumed
435 maestri
436 podiatrist
437 restructured
438 metrically
439 motorcade
440 zipping
441 unmoral
442 electioneered
443 minibikes
444 trillion
445 sudsier
446 actuator
447 acing
448 masochism
449 softeners
450 cocksucker
451 brig
452 verbs
453 buccaneer
454 confessed
455 filibustered
456 rearmed
457 melodramatics
458 swivelled
459 veggies
460 monochrome
461 hellos
462 escalators
463 Seyfert
464 bushwhack
465 encapsulation
466 combining
467 realists
468 playgrounds
469 teenage
470 glandular
471 tot
472 cyclical
473 tinsmith
474 commitment
475 undersells
476 orthopaedics
477 yardstick
478 Vivian
479 peppy
480 swatted
481 earlobes
482 snapshots
483 nitpicker
484 unities
485 depressants
486 briefing
487 halo
488 watermarking
489 electronics
490 inadequates
491 ghosted
492 rapscallions
493 snorkeler
494 percentages
495 relapsing
496 facet
497 inconsistently
498 takeout
499 acidify
500 password
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''
{|class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
!word
!date
!class
|-
|monsignor||align="right"|1607||C
|-
|productive||align="right"|1612||C
|-
|alertly||align="right"|1618||C
|-
|inconsistent||align="right"|1620||C
|-
|numerical||align="right"|1628||C
|-
|interlock||align="right"|1632||C
|-
|platoons||align="right"|1637||C
|-
|forevermore||align="right"|1641||C
|-
|identification||align="right"|1644||C
|-
|untenable||align="right"|1647||C
|-
|reversible||align="right"|1648||C
|-
|authentication||align="right"|1652||C
|-
|monotheistic||align="right"|1660||C
|-
|constructive||align="right"|1680||C
|-
|alphabetize||align="right"|1691||C
|-
|misconduct||align="right"|1705||C
|-
|propagandists||align="right"|1718||C
|-
|revelations||align="right"|1729||C
|-
|guaranteed||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|cohesiveness||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|systematizing||align="right"|1767||C
|-
|letdown||align="right"|1768||C
|-
|dissident||align="right"|1769||C
|-
|diagramming||align="right"|1785||C
|-
|backhanded||align="right"|1800||C
|-
|autocratically||align="right"|1823||C
|-
|socialistic||align="right"|1827||C
|-
|Mormonisms||align="right"|1830||C
|-
|westernize||align="right"|1837||C
|-
|trademarks||align="right"|1838||C
|-
|propagandized||align="right"|1844||C
|-
|graffito||align="right"|1851||C
|-
|Americans||align="right"|1855||C
|-
|optimize||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|outdistancing||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|rogues||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|birthrates||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|slob||align="right"|1861||C
|-
|quantifier||align="right"|1876||C
|-
|implode||align="right"|1881||C
|-
|housemother||align="right"|1882||C
|-
|scantier||align="right"|1600||
|-
|sierras||align="right"|1600||
|-
|arena||align="right"|1600||
|-
|toddled||align="right"|1600||
|-
|eventful||align="right"|1600||
|-
|catheter||align="right"|1601||
|-
|primarily||align="right"|1601||
|-
|labeling||align="right"|1601||
|-
|copings||align="right"|1601||
|-
|Pooh||align="right"|1602||
|-
|respectively||align="right"|1602||
|-
|embroiling||align="right"|1603||
|-
|haloes||align="right"|1603||
|-
|Iliad||align="right"|1603||
|-
|enthusiasm||align="right"|1603||
|-
|dragoons||align="right"|1604||
|-
|promised||align="right"|1604||
|-
|recollecting||align="right"|1604||
|-
|stentorian||align="right"|1605||
|-
|rivaling||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impregnates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|touchy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impassive||align="right"|1605||
|-
|immediacy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|literary||align="right"|1605||
|-
|animosities||align="right"|1605||
|-
|volatile||align="right"|1605||
|-
|vegetates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|acclaiming||align="right"|1606||
|-
|onlooker||align="right"|1606||
|-
|sides||align="right"|1606||
|-
|wisher||align="right"|1607||
|-
|melancholia||align="right"|1607||
|-
|tab||align="right"|1607||
|-
|typical||align="right"|1609||
|-
|casuist||align="right"|1609||
|-
|bucolic||align="right"|1609||
|-
|footfalls||align="right"|1610||
|-
|bison||align="right"|1611||
|-
|lambing||align="right"|1611||
|-
|ticketed||align="right"|1611||
|-
|incompatibilities||align="right"|1611||
|-
|demonstrators||align="right"|1611||
|-
|reproduces||align="right"|1611||
|-
|longish||align="right"|1611||
|-
|amalgamations||align="right"|1612||
|-
|bailing||align="right"|1613||
|-
|caste||align="right"|1613||
|-
|convulses||align="right"|1614||
|-
|abscess||align="right"|1615||
|-
|valise||align="right"|1615||
|-
|cult||align="right"|1617||
|-
|hesitancy||align="right"|1617||
|-
|drill||align="right"|1619||
|-
|blotchy||align="right"|1619||
|-
|urban||align="right"|1619||
|-
|appositeness||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingratiated||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingrate||align="right"|1622||
|-
|diplomata||align="right"|1622||
|-
|exporters||align="right"|1623||
|-
|drolly||align="right"|1623||
|-
|adrift||align="right"|1624||
|-
|powwow||align="right"|1624||
|-
|oaf||align="right"|1625||
|-
|preconceptions||align="right"|1625||
|-
|ruse||align="right"|1625||
|-
|abominating||align="right"|1628||
|-
|dodo||align="right"|1628||
|-
|discriminated||align="right"|1628||
|-
|biassing||align="right"|1628||
|-
|enslaved||align="right"|1628||
|-
|backwaters||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromic||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromes||align="right"|1629||
|-
|tussles||align="right"|1629||
|-
|correspondents||align="right"|1630||
|-
|underrates||align="right"|1632||
|-
|underrate||align="right"|1632||
|-
|characterized||align="right"|1633||
|-
|etcher||align="right"|1634||
|-
|labium||align="right"|1634||
|-
|fluctuates||align="right"|1634||
|-
|morocco||align="right"|1634||
|-
|circumnavigated||align="right"|1634||
|-
|Anglican||align="right"|1635||
|-
|graphically||align="right"|1637||
|-
|millenniums||align="right"|1638||
|-
|domesticating||align="right"|1639||
|-
|pharmaceutical||align="right"|1640||
|-
|onus||align="right"|1640||
|-
|feints||align="right"|1644||
|-
|scavenge||align="right"|1644||
|-
|malls||align="right"|1644||
|-
|salaciously||align="right"|1645||
|-
|additional||align="right"|1646||
|-
|nonuser||align="right"|1646||
|-
|predisposing||align="right"|1646||
|-
|temperamentally||align="right"|1646||
|-
|invigorate||align="right"|1646||
|-
|protuberances||align="right"|1646||
|-
|disinclines||align="right"|1647||
|-
|castanet||align="right"|1647||
|-
|piloting||align="right"|1649||
|-
|leniently||align="right"|1652||
|-
|melange||align="right"|1653||
|-
|dialling||align="right"|1653||
|-
|naively||align="right"|1654||
|-
|siesta||align="right"|1655||
|-
|collectives||align="right"|1655||
|-
|quibbles||align="right"|1656||
|-
|dawdler||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmologies||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmology||align="right"|1656||
|-
|morbid||align="right"|1656||
|-
|inconvenienced||align="right"|1656||
|-
|numerating||align="right"|1657||
|-
|incapacitate||align="right"|1657||
|-
|overwrite||align="right"|1658||
|-
|horrendous||align="right"|1659||
|-
|tableau||align="right"|1660||
|-
|derisively||align="right"|1662||
|-
|disk||align="right"|1664||
|-
|diverging||align="right"|1665||
|-
|rotundity||align="right"|1665||
|-
|cultivators||align="right"|1665||
|-
|maroon||align="right"|1666||
|-
|stunning||align="right"|1667||
|-
|interleave||align="right"|1668||
|-
|globes||align="right"|1668||
|-
|hick||align="right"|1669||
|-
|realty||align="right"|1670||
|-
|belated||align="right"|1670||
|-
|punning||align="right"|1670||
|-
|haphazardly||align="right"|1671||
|-
|wader||align="right"|1673||
|-
|resilient||align="right"|1674||
|-
|auk||align="right"|1674||
|-
|priggish||align="right"|1676||
|-
|bungalow||align="right"|1676||
|-
|masqueraded||align="right"|1677||
|-
|configuring||align="right"|1677||
|-
|masterstroke||align="right"|1679||
|-
|yaws||align="right"|1679||
|-
|ganglions||align="right"|1681||
|-
|kidnaps||align="right"|1682||
|-
|shivery||align="right"|1683||
|-
|whaler||align="right"|1684||
|-
|bewilder||align="right"|1684||
|-
|roughshod||align="right"|1688||
|-
|bluebird||align="right"|1688||
|-
|toothbrushes||align="right"|1690||
|-
|romance||align="right"|1690||
|-
|adeptness||align="right"|1691||
|-
|dowsing||align="right"|1691||
|-
|processioned||align="right"|1691||
|-
|missioned||align="right"|1692||
|-
|vessels||align="right"|1694||
|-
|flabbiness||align="right"|1694||
|-
|penmanship||align="right"|1695||
|-
|Ojibwa||align="right"|1700||
|-
|actualized||align="right"|1701||
|-
|established||align="right"|1702||
|-
|copped||align="right"|1704||
|-
|liability||align="right"|1705||
|-
|sniggers||align="right"|1706||
|-
|dyspeptic||align="right"|1706||
|-
|crunch||align="right"|1706||
|-
|hibiscuses||align="right"|1706||
|-
|stencil||align="right"|1707||
|-
|quadruplet||align="right"|1709||
|-
|primness||align="right"|1709||
|-
|stocks||align="right"|1709||
|-
|leaseholds||align="right"|1710||
|-
|rheumatic||align="right"|1711||
|-
|papilla||align="right"|1713||
|-
|presentiments||align="right"|1714||
|-
|tantrum||align="right"|1714||
|-
|needling||align="right"|1715||
|-
|impersonating||align="right"|1715||
|-
|settees||align="right"|1716||
|-
|hustling||align="right"|1720||
|-
|unassuming||align="right"|1722||
|-
|Houyhnhnm||align="right"|1726||
|-
|knotholes||align="right"|1726||
|-
|Lilliput||align="right"|1726||
|-
|soporifics||align="right"|1727||
|-
|Shinto||align="right"|1727||
|-
|bludgeons||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pillboxes||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pantheistic||align="right"|1732||
|-
|vampires||align="right"|1732||
|-
|palaver||align="right"|1735||
|-
|Stilton||align="right"|1736||
|-
|incriminates||align="right"|1736||
|-
|philanders||align="right"|1737||
|-
|exiled||align="right"|1737||
|-
|coterie||align="right"|1738||
|-
|cantaloupe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|wham||align="right"|1739||
|-
|swipe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|icings||align="right"|1740||
|-
|segueing||align="right"|1740||
|-
|insulates||align="right"|1741||
|-
|flatiron||align="right"|1743||
|-
|uncharacteristic||align="right"|1748||
|-
|cornmeal||align="right"|1749||
|-
|develop||align="right"|1750||
|-
|spindling||align="right"|1750||
|-
|measurements||align="right"|1751||
|-
|pompon||align="right"|1751||
|-
|fanciers||align="right"|1751||
|-
|lumberyard||align="right"|1753||
|-
|riffles||align="right"|1754||
|-
|personification||align="right"|1755||
|-
|mesquites||align="right"|1759||
|-
|maniacs||align="right"|1763||
|-
|pronouncing||align="right"|1764||
|-
|frivolity||align="right"|1764||
|-
|aboriginals||align="right"|1767||
|-
|Afghans||align="right"|1767||
|-
|paws||align="right"|1769||
|-
|mynas||align="right"|1769||
|-
|modernization||align="right"|1770||
|-
|coagulants||align="right"|1770||
|-
|hairpin||align="right"|1771||
|-
|fagged||align="right"|1772||
|-
|Ta||align="right"|1772||
|-
|propertied||align="right"|1772||
|-
|fagging||align="right"|1772||
|-
|pups||align="right"|1773||
|-
|gibbon||align="right"|1774||
|-
|gecko||align="right"|1774||
|-
|passé||align="right"|1775||
|-
|clannish||align="right"|1776||
|-
|gnu||align="right"|1777||
|-
|gasses||align="right"|1779||
|-
|balalaika||align="right"|1780||
|-
|congressman||align="right"|1780||
|-
|fumigate||align="right"|1781||
|-
|varying||align="right"|1781||
|-
|minutiae||align="right"|1782||
|-
|effervesce||align="right"|1784||
|-
|bangle||align="right"|1787||
|-
|letups||align="right"|1787||
|-
|thyroids||align="right"|1787||
|-
|loots||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Hollands||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Dolly||align="right"|1790||
|-
|weakfish||align="right"|1791||
|-
|rutabagas||align="right"|1791||
|-
|equalizer||align="right"|1792||
|-
|steeplechase||align="right"|1793||
|-
|daredevils||align="right"|1794||
|-
|commentated||align="right"|1794||
|-
|embeds||align="right"|1794||
|-
|telegraphy||align="right"|1795||
|-
|soled||align="right"|1795||
|-
|allover||align="right"|1796||
|-
|titanium||align="right"|1796||
|-
|quizzically||align="right"|1797||
|-
|stashes||align="right"|1797||
|-
|kilogram||align="right"|1797||
|-
|belittled||align="right"|1797||
|-
|Mon||align="right"|1798||
|-
|bibliographies||align="right"|1802||
|-
|fezes||align="right"|1803||
|-
|dressmaking||align="right"|1803||
|-
|condoned||align="right"|1805||
|-
|coarsening||align="right"|1805||
|-
|gumbos||align="right"|1805||
|-
|peewee||align="right"|1806||
|-
|lassos||align="right"|1807||
|-
|Pueblos||align="right"|1808||
|-
|blinder||align="right"|1809||
|-
|eddied||align="right"|1810||
|-
|scurrying||align="right"|1810||
|-
|milliliter||align="right"|1810||
|-
|miffed||align="right"|1811||
|-
|quintet||align="right"|1811||
|-
|aluminum||align="right"|1812||
|-
|shawling||align="right"|1812||
|-
|tossup||align="right"|1812||
|-
|opalescent||align="right"|1813||
|-
|vocalic||align="right"|1814||
|-
|Swahili||align="right"|1814||
|-
|nocturnes||align="right"|1814||
|-
|underpaying||align="right"|1817||
|-
|diarist||align="right"|1818||
|-
|intellectualizes||align="right"|1819||
|-
|stethoscope||align="right"|1820||
|-
|bloodstain||align="right"|1820||
|-
|squawk||align="right"|1821||
|-
|suffragist||align="right"|1822||
|-
|caffeine||align="right"|1823||
|-
|flysheet||align="right"|1825||
|-
|augmented||align="right"|1825||
|-
|subway||align="right"|1825||
|-
|crotchety||align="right"|1825||
|-
|pullout||align="right"|1825||
|-
|beadier||align="right"|1826||
|-
|mammal||align="right"|1826||
|-
|chaffed||align="right"|1827||
|-
|clinics||align="right"|1827||
|-
|recruitment||align="right"|1828||
|-
|mas||align="right"|1829||
|-
|mesmerizing||align="right"|1829||
|-
|constitutionals||align="right"|1829||
|-
|cahoots||align="right"|1829||
|-
|homeopathic||align="right"|1830||
|-
|pterodactyl||align="right"|1830||
|-
|cadres||align="right"|1830||
|-
|hex||align="right"|1830||
|-
|chipmunks||align="right"|1832||
|-
|Horus||align="right"|1832||
|-
|toothpastes||align="right"|1832||
|-
|cottonmouths||align="right"|1832||
|-
|underplays||align="right"|1833||
|-
|dorsals||align="right"|1834||
|-
|cetaceans||align="right"|1835||
|-
|wholeheartedly||align="right"|1836||
|-
|creepily||align="right"|1836||
|-
|étude||align="right"|1837||
|-
|Confucianism||align="right"|1837||
|-
|scatting||align="right"|1838||
|-
|smokestacks||align="right"|1838||
|-
|pretzel||align="right"|1838||
|-
|upheaval||align="right"|1838||
|-
|Bunker||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mushier||align="right"|1839||
|-
|bushings||align="right"|1839||
|-
|OK||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mesa||align="right"|1840||
|-
|wastrel||align="right"|1841||
|-
|pyromaniac||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Assam||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Spitz||align="right"|1842||
|-
|wisteria||align="right"|1842||
|-
|cubbyhole||align="right"|1842||
|-
|kinkiest||align="right"|1844||
|-
|Limoges||align="right"|1844||
|-
|taillights||align="right"|1844||
|-
|subgroups||align="right"|1845||
|-
|garnisheeing||align="right"|1846||
|-
|Joe||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tobogganed||align="right"|1846||
|-
|snobby||align="right"|1846||
|-
|strapless||align="right"|1846||
|-
|cheekily||align="right"|1846||
|-
|orgiastic||align="right"|1846||
|-
|funnest||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tactlessness||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tailcoats||align="right"|1847||
|-
|gynecologists||align="right"|1847||
|-
|cartography||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tenderfeet||align="right"|1849||
|-
|laterals||align="right"|1851||
|-
|educations||align="right"|1851||
|-
|trunks||align="right"|1851||
|-
|hangars||align="right"|1852||
|-
|colloids||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimits||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimited||align="right"|1852||
|-
|davenport||align="right"|1853||
|-
|Russians||align="right"|1854||
|-
|abnormality||align="right"|1854||
|-
|rainfall||align="right"|1854||
|-
|Brewer||align="right"|1855||
|-
|hazings||align="right"|1855||
|-
|vendetta||align="right"|1855||
|-
|pullouts||align="right"|1855||
|-
|warlords||align="right"|1856||
|-
|seismographs||align="right"|1858||
|-
|interbreeding||align="right"|1859||
|-
|emulsification||align="right"|1859||
|-
|pub||align="right"|1859||
|-
|soulfulness||align="right"|1860||
|-
|Darwinian||align="right"|1860||
|-
|flautist||align="right"|1860||
|-
|pipelines||align="right"|1860||
|-
|ewe||align="right"|1861||
|-
|bellboy||align="right"|1861||
|-
|trapezes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|ewes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|railroading||align="right"|1862||
|-
|isomorphic||align="right"|1862||
|-
|canapé||align="right"|1863||
|-
|columns||align="right"|1863||
|-
|octets||align="right"|1864||
|-
|coffeecakes||align="right"|1865||
|-
|goulash||align="right"|1866||
|-
|sudsier||align="right"|1866||
|-
|maverick||align="right"|1867||
|-
|safaris||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rangier||align="right"|1868||
|-
|mailbox||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rotting||align="right"|1870||
|-
|saprophyte||align="right"|1870||
|-
|agenda||align="right"|1871||
|-
|roomers||align="right"|1871||
|-
|masterminds||align="right"|1872||
|-
|deforest||align="right"|1874||
|-
|spaghetti||align="right"|1874||
|-
|intercollegiate||align="right"|1874||
|-
|Helicon||align="right"|1875||
|-
|dermatitis||align="right"|1876||
|-
|semiprivate||align="right"|1876||
|-
|toniest||align="right"|1877||
|-
|supplies||align="right"|1878||
|-
|quirking||align="right"|1878||
|-
|wagged||align="right"|1879||
|-
|onionskin||align="right"|1879||
|-
|bacillus||align="right"|1879||
|-
|clobber||align="right"|1879||
|-
|steamrollered||align="right"|1879||
|-
|alumna||align="right"|1879||
|-
|locoweed||align="right"|1879||
|-
|toeholds||align="right"|1880||
|-
|paternalism||align="right"|1881||
|-
|adrenals||align="right"|1882||
|-
|syndicating||align="right"|1882||
|-
|winery||align="right"|1882||
|-
|interface||align="right"|1882||
|-
|infantryman||align="right"|1883||
|-
|worldlier||align="right"|1883||
|-
|shyest||align="right"|1884||
|-
|showdowns||align="right"|1884||
|-
|oilfield||align="right"|1884||
|-
|words||align="right"|1884||
|-
|fixating||align="right"|1885||
|-
|micron||align="right"|1885||
|-
|stagehand||align="right"|1885||
|-
|contraceptives||align="right"|1886||
|-
|sensitization||align="right"|1887||
|-
|parachutists||align="right"|1888||
|-
|sandblaster||align="right"|1888||
|-
|erogenous||align="right"|1889||
|-
|lactating||align="right"|1889||
|-
|psychopathics||align="right"|1890||
|-
|reactor||align="right"|1890||
|-
|unsnaps||align="right"|1892||
|-
|decolletes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|inbound||align="right"|1894||
|-
|marihuana||align="right"|1894||
|-
|encapsulated||align="right"|1894||
|-
|erythrocytes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|sequinned||align="right"|1894||
|-
|defrosted||align="right"|1895||
|-
|sacks||align="right"|1895||
|-
|phonemes||align="right"|1896||
|-
|mescaline||align="right"|1896||
|-
|ions||align="right"|1896||
|-
|midyear||align="right"|1896||
|-
|redwoods||align="right"|1897||
|-
|happenstances||align="right"|1897||
|-
|sandhog||align="right"|1897||
|-
|eggs||align="right"|1898||
|-
|taxicab||align="right"|1899||
|-
|concoction||align="right"|1675||
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
{|class="wikitable"
!
!16s
!17s
!18s
!Σ
|-
!conservative words
|15||9||17||41
|-
!all words
|176||114||210||500
|-
!percentage of conservative words
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.

::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "''best''" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

== Destruction of words ==

Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==

For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of
the conservative words:

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!claimed
|20||40||80||160||13
|-
!recount
|20||40||81||150||14
|}

An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!pre Segway
|14||28||56||112||6
|-
!post Segway
|15||28||56||124||6
|-
!my count
|15||29||57||114||6
|}

How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.

But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !

After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...

So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== Too Good to be True ==

Imagine the hypothesis: There are as many male writers as there are female
ones.

To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,
the hypothesis is true.

But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we
reach round 300?

Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being
finished, but we can't conclude anything!

Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.

Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1

So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.

And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.

When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!

Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.

Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating
''best conservative new words''.

At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be bigger than for each other combination,
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields odds of
1:2,000,000.

Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not
believable, and don't support your claims made in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Disbelief of something because it is "too good to be true" is not a strong argument against it. Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example. Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.

: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil. Of course it is not a random process. That would be silly. But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn. We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells. Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== A summary with graphs... ==

On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: <blockquote>'''Conservapedia's Law''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. 
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. </blockquote> This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''
<blockquote>''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''</blockquote>

{|
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]
|-
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of ≈ 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]
|-
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]
|-
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]
|}
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.

I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!

{|
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]
|-
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does not show a geometric progression.
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]
|-
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century ≈ 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]
|-
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 conservative words, and a general distribution of the creation of words.
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|However, if one maps the percentage of words in - e.g. - a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]
|}

Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:<blockquote>That's a
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I
would have identified as liberal in nature. But very few of these words
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) </blockquote>

I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)
pattern.

Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. But quantity is no substitute or quality. You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil. Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil. Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about. Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend?
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the ''best conservative words''.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

One way of marrying the two ideas above (that there is no increase of conservative terms over time and that there is an increase in the "best" conservative terms over time) is simply to suggest that conservative terms are getting better in quality and not quantity, which is the point that Mr. Schlafly makes, I believe. An explanation that might want to be considered is that after a new term is coined, it may slowly lose its relevence over time. I would suggest that if you look at the vocabulary from the 17th century, many words have lost their relevence greatly. This presumably applies to conservative terms as well. So, a partial explanation for conservative terms increasing in "quality" over time may be the decrease in time-lag and thus an increase in relevence.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 12:15, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decrypt ==

Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the "Bombe"). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.
:: As for "the British are notoriously weak in math": you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so. If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!

::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, "a non-Newtonian fluid". He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::Brilliant logic. 17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any. As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact? If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple "web-like" effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story. I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I must agree with you, JacobB. This is nothing other than rank liberal revisionism of the highest order. Slandering the good name of such a noble Christian is just plainly offensive. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

''" If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!"'' - Here is a small list of some whom I would consider to rank with the world's best (in no particular order):
* Sir Isaac Newton
* Charles Babbage
* Alan Turing
* G.H. Hardy
* Bertrand Russell
* Roger Penrose
* Andrew Wiles
* Arthur Cayley
* William Rowan Hamilton
* George Boole
* Augustus De Morgan
Whilst I agree that Polish mathematicians played an important role in cracking the Enigma code, but to jump from that to saying that not only are there no great British mathematicians, but that also Brits are 'notoriously weak' at maths - is clearly unfair and incorrect. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 07:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

: While I am respectful of the contributions of those on your list, as a group they are a far cry from the greatest mathematicians and many would not be considered "British". Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain. Wiles did his work in the U.S. Russell's work was deflated by Godel, and others on the list don't even come close to being great mathematicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Fiona seems to miss the varying degrees of "mathematician", "great mathematician", and "one of the greatest mathematicians" as if they're all the same thing. We saw the same thing when another contributor was unable to grasp the difference between "conservative words" and "best conservative words". It's as if liberals can see everything in the world only in black and white terms, as if everything falls perfectly into one of two categories, e.g. "mathematician" and "not-mathematician". I think this is another example of [[Liberal Inability To Abstract]]. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 14:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Andy, you stated: "It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman" and "The British are notoriously weak in mathematics". Both these statements are not only untrue but ridiculous. I've tried to contribute to this encyclopedia but I'm not going to waste my time messing around if you fill it up with your own uninformed prejudices, refuse to do some easy reading to check your facts, and get absurdly defensive when your statements are corrected by people who are more knowledgeable on the subject in question. ''Laziness is not a conservative character trait, least of all intellectual laziness.'' Please tell me if you're going to check your facts before shooting your mouth off in future, in which case I'd be pleased to continue contributing to CP. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

: Benjy, please rant somewhere else instead. We tell the truth here, whether [[Anglophile]]s accept it or not. The relative weakness of [[Britain]] in mathematics is an objective fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::Have you any proof for your assertion? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 16:37, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::(EC) Hi Andy. Are you talking about mathematical ability in the general UK population, or about the number of major contributions to the field by British mathematicians? Thanks, --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 16:48, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::(EC) Look at any list of the greatest mathematicians of the past 200 and count how many were from Britain. Or list the greatest modern mathematical achievements and count how many came out of Britain. I'm sorry liberals don't teach this, and that's why there is a need for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::::According to [http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm this blog], 9 of 99 were British - and that's an all time, Ancient Greece to present list. Now you; would you care to support your position with sources? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::And ''your source'' comes from a ''blog?'' How about you, SamI, come up with non-blog, official sources yourself to support ''your'' position. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::Rather a blog than my own imagination. Would Andy care to provide his sources? The burden of proof, and all that. [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::(EC)[http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html This list gives 3 British and 1 Irish out of 14.] And why do I keep having to fill out captcha boxes? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Andy said "Look at '''any''' list" (my emphasis). This is a list already on the Internet so SamI is just following Andy's advice. Please note that there are '''no''' people on that list who were born in the U.S.A. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:23, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Guess what...you, SamI, just accused Andy of using his own imagination, and since you, GeoffA, is supportive of Sam's statement, both of you are going to get official sources to support your side, otherwise I'm going to assume you are using your own imaginations just to troll here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::I would say that the second source I posted above is fairly official. And why do we need to support our side, but Andy doesn't have to support his beyond saying 'oh, it's an objective fact'? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:39, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::How about the [[Fields Medal]] as a rough proxy? I count six awarded to UK mathematicians out of a total of 48 (12.5%), compared to thirteen awarded to Americans (~27%). Not bad for a small island. --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 17:27, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well there you go "Karajou". Since the USA has a population ~5 times larger than the UK, it looks like the UK is doing pretty well. And don't you think Andy can talk for himself without you leaping to his side? What are '''your''' sources to support his statement? [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:36, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::There are better ways to prove us wrong then by coming here and making demands; one of those ways is to provide a reasonable explanation which supports your position, backed up by valid sources, and being polite about the whole thing. See ya in a couple hours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

(outdent) Well I used the two "ours" you gave me to find some sources.

How about this [http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/great_mathematicians.html commercial source]? Of the 20 mathematiciams, John Napier, Ada Lovelace, Lewis Carroll, Alan Turing and William Oughtred are British. That's 25%. No Americans.

Or how about [http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/11/the-10-best-mathematicians this] article listing a top 10? 1 Brit - no Americans.

The Scientific Computing Laboratory at Hong Kong Baptist University [http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html lists] four Brits out of 14. Yes - Christains disagree with you too.

Another blog (I know you don't like them, but surely the "Best of the Public" is always right? Your boss thinks so) [http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2008/01/twenty-five-greatest-mathematicians-of.html here] has two Brits out of 25. No Americans.

Centre College [http://web.centre.edu/mat/century.html lists] 24 for last century alone. Four Brits and Five Yanks. That's still not bad for such a poor, small, atheistic island.

Lastly, in the magazine Mathematics Teacher (I.7. Vol.55, 1962), W.C. Eells [http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/~flora/100.html published] a list of the 100 greatest mathematicians of all time. I'm not going to go through all 100, but Newton, Napier, Wallis, Hamilton, Barrow, Taylor, Briggs, Babbage, Smith, H.J.S., Cotes, Boole, Halley and Lord Kelvin were all Brits. That's 13/100.

So. There are your sources. I note that SamI can't respond because TK blocked him/her. Since I fully expect the same fate to befall me after this post for having proved you wrong, I'll say goodbye now. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect you or Andy to provide sources to back up ''your'' point of view. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 19:43, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Granted, GeoffA, I would agree with your point that we should provide sources to back up our point of view. But we're not going to do it for someone on demand. And there lies the end of the lesson. Hope you learned something about tact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

*Is there something in the water over there in the U.K., or is it your atheism? Perhaps its the generally gloomy economic picture and remnants of the class system that make you as you are! Godspeed to all of you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:38, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Brits, we're talking about '''''mathematicians''''' in this thread. Do you know what a mathematician is? That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell). One more tip: the Irish (Hamilton) do not consider themselves to be British.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

*''Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain'': The [[Oxford calculators]] were pre-modern, but English. [[John Napier]] or [[Richard Recorde]] where Scottish or Welsh - though they weren't English, they were inhabitants of the British Isles, and therefore British in the same sense as most Haitians are Hispaniolians as well. Both are modern mathematicians - in the usual sense of the word ''"modern"'' when talking about periods of history. You may describe them as ''early modern''. Sir Isaac Newton - who lived even later - was e a modern mathematician, too. And as a subject of Queen Anne of Great Britain, he was most certainly British.
*''Do you know what a mathematician is? '' A mathematician is someone who contributes to the field of mathematics. Mathematicians are not squeamish: you could be covered with green fur and be a baker - if you solve an open Hilbert problem, they will you love you, and count you as a mathematician. Penrose, Lovelace, Babbage, Turing and Russell were great mathematicians, even if they were part-time physicists, geeks or hacks. {{unsigned|RonLar}}

:: Additionally, the overlap between mathematics and physics is huge - especially applied mathematics. Sophie Germain, a ''woman'' mathematician who appears on several of those lists, contributed a huge amount of work to the subject of elastics, and her work was used extensively, for instance in the construction of the Eiffel Tower. She is universally considered to be a mathematician, but you would apparently describe her as a physicist or even an architect. Russell was deeply involved in the Hilbert Program, which though ultimately unsuccessful provided modern mathematics with a solid framework. His work ''Principia Mathematica'' is one of the most important works on the subject.

:: I cannot understand why you have such a closed mind on this subject. You have plenty of evidence that contradicts your opinion, so it's now only fair that you present evidence to support your hypothesis or at least consider revising it.

:: Please note, that I am not claiming that Britain is the pre-eminent country for producing mathematicians. Germany would probably win that prize across modern history, and if you take the last 50 years or so, it's probably the U.S.A. (although I have no hard evidence for that statement). I merely take issue with your statement that "The British are notoriously weak in mathematics". [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 08:43, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

== General reply to Brits, if any, who commented above ==

The [[Brits]] who protest so stridently illustrate to me the problem of [[Anglophilia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

:"curiouser and curiouser" - for me, it looks as the [[Anglophobe]]s are justignoring the evidence:

:{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="3"|Field Medalists by Country
|-
!country
!#
!medalist
|-
!USA
|align="right"|13 ||Jesse Douglas, John Milnor, Paul Joseph Cohen, Stephen Smale, John G. Thompson, Charles Fefferman, Daniel Quillen, William Thurston, Shing-Tung Yau, Michael Freedman, Edward Witten, Curtis T. McMullen, David Mumford
|-
!France
|align="right"|9||Laurent Schwartz, Jean-Pierre Serre, René Thom, Alexander Grothendieck, Alain Connes, Pierre-Louis Lions, Jean-Christophe Yoccoz, Laurent Lafforgue, Wendelin Werner
|-
!Soviet Union/Russia
|align="right"|8||Sergei Novikov, Grigory Margulis, Vladimir Drinfel'd, Efim Zelmanov, Maxim Kontsevich, Vladimir Voevodsky, Andrei Okounkov, (Grigori Perelman)
|-
!UK
|align="right"|6||Klaus Roth, Michael Atiyah, Alan Baker, Simon Donaldson, Richard Borcherds, Timothy Gowers
|-
!Japan
|align="right"|3||Kunihiko Kodaira, Heisuke Hironaka, Shigefumi Mori
|-
!Belgium
|align="right"|2||Pierre Deligne, Jean Bourgain
|-
!Finland
|align="right"|1||Lars Ahlfors
|-
!Norway
|align="right"|1||Atle Selberg
|-
!Sweden
|align="right"|1||Lars Hörmander
|-
!Italy
|align="right"|1||Enrico Bombieri
|-
!Germany
|align="right"|1||Gerd Faltings
|-
!New Zealand
|align="right"|1||Vaughan F. R. Jones
|-
!Australia
|align="right"|1||Terence Tao
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:04, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

:Klaus Roth was Prussian. Michael Atiyah is Sudanese/Egyptian. Simon Donaldson does his work in ''four-dimensions'' when this world obviously only has ''three''. I imagine if I made up the math as I went, I could get a Fields medal as well? And Richard Borcherds is from South Africa.
:So spectacularly, you provide ''maybe'' two candidates for British mathematicians. Hardly impressive, considering ''Finland'' managed to get one. And who cares about this "Field's Medal" anyways? It's just some award experts give to each other to make each other feel better, and exclude the best of the public. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 20:07, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
::For the record, "Cathy," the cobordism work of Donaldson was not only essential to the classification theorems which have revolutionized modern topology, but also have important applications in quantum mechanics and other fields that deal with "this world." For somebody who apparently has such extensive knowledge in the history of 20th century mathematics, you are certainly lacking in understanding if you believe Donaldson "made up the math as he went." As for the Fields medal (no apostrophe) being something that the best of the public are excluded from, you should be aware that best of the public exemplar Gregori Perelman was OFFERED a Fields medal and turned it down.
::Before you continue your pattern of jumping into talk page arguments with on-the-spot research, I suggest you make significant and substantive edits to our mainspace articles.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

History of Clothing

2010-08-10T00:14:26Z

JacobB: develop

The history of clothing and fashion stretches back thousands of years.

== Earliest Clothing ==
[[Image:Egyptian clothes.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Clothes worn in ancient Egypt.]]
[[Image:BablylonianClothes.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Royal garments from ancient Babylon.]]
The very earliest clothes were made of fig leaves<ref>Genesis 3:7</ref>. By the time the Babylonian and Egyptian empires had arisen, elaborate garments existed which demonstrated the wealth and power of the individual wearing them. These garments only existed for kings and other nobles; it is likely that the clothing worn by the everyday man in the street remained unchanged for thousands of years.

== Classical Clothing in the Mediterranean==

The variations of clothing worn in classical Rome were similar to the clothing worn in Greece at the same time, creating a distinct Mediterranean style. The most famous clothing item of this style, the toga, was worn by both genders and bore no distinction of rank. The differentiation between rich and poor was made through the quality of the material; the upper-classes wore thin, naturally colored, wool togas while the lower-classes wore coarse material or thin felt. They also differentiated by colours used:

*the ''toga praetextata'', with a purple border, worn by male children and magistrates during official ceremonies
*the ''toga picta'' or ''toga palmata'', with a gold border, used by generals in their Roman triumph|triumphs
*''trabea''' - toga entirely in purple, worn by statues of deities and emperors
*''saffron'' toga - worn by augurs and priestesses, white with a purple band, also worn by consuls on public festivals and equites during a transvection
*toga with red borders - wore by men and women for festivals

After the second century BC, besides tunics, women wore very simple clothes called stola, after the fashions of their Greek contemporaries. These stoles usually consisted of two rectangular segments of cloth joined at the side by fibulae and buttons in a manner that allowed the garment to drape freely over the front of the wearer. Over the stola the palla usually was worn, a sort of shawl made of an oblong piece of material that could be worn as a coat, with or without hood, or slung over the left shoulder, under the right arm and then draped over the left arm [http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/clothing2.html].

== Clothing in Middle Age Europe ==
The Clothing of the European [[Medieval]] period is a fascinating development from simple garments which were universal to all classes into complex, and often restrictive fashions, which varied for each class. We will begin around 900 AD and continue to 1600, focusing on the clothing of the [[British Isles]].

=== Anglo-Saxon England - 900 AD ===

[[Image:Women900.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Woman from 900 AD]]
The clothing of Pre-Norman [[England]] was very simple, existing primarily for protection and warmth with little or no interest in [[fashion]]. All [[class]]es wore garments of similar type. Distinctions of rank were shown in the quality of the fabric and in the person's [[jewelry]]. [[Wool]] and [[linen]] were the most common [[fabric]]s. Both were dyed in basic, natural colors. Upper class women might occupy their spare time by working embroidery, but such adornment was rare.

Women wore two long gowns with tight-fitting sleeves as basic undergarments. Over these, was worn a super-tunic, a loose gown with moderately flared sleeves which reached a few inches past the elbow and were turned back into a cuff. The super-tunic was hitched up at the sides to around knee length to keep it free of dirt. Unmarried women always covered their heads unless they were slaves. The head-dresses were nothing more than a simple draped cloth or a hood attached to the cloak. The cloak was a large semi circle of fabric which was draped around the shoulders and tied or pinned with a brooch.

[[Image:Men900.jpg|thumb|150px|A man from 900 AD]]
Men wore a tight fiting shirt as an undergarment. Over the shirt, they wore a tunic, which was like a woman's super-tunic, but shorter. On their legs, they wore loose trousers called braes, which were bound tight to the leg with thongs of leather. Men's [[cloak]]s could be in a variety of shapes including square, oblong, and semicircular.

[[Shoe]]s for men and women were fairly simple. They were really no more than slippers, with soft soles that offered minimal protection or support. Many of the poor simply went barefoot. Shoes were little more than ornaments for the rich. [[Boot]]s were also available, but again they were flimsy by modern standards.

=== Anglo-Norman England - 1000 AD ===

[[Image:Women1000.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Women's clothing from 1000 to 1100 AD. Note the tight fitting sleeves. Also, the super tunic is no longer hitched up, but hangs long.]]
The [[Norman Conquest]] brought many changes in the clothing of the English people. Embroidered and appliqued borders became popular for men and women as did the wearing of [[belt]]s. Square necklines gained popularity and became as common as the old round style. The [[Normans]] also transmitted their attention to cleanliness and personal appearance to the English. Soon most English combed their hair and bathed quite frequently and owned several sets of clothing. The Normans also started a trend of fine fabrics and clothes decorated to an absurd degree.

Women's clothes went through two notable changes during this period. First, the sleeves of the super-tunic were no longer flared, but fit tight to the wrist. Second, the super tunic was no longer hitched up but hung long. Women continued to keep their heads covered.

[[Image:Men1000.jpg|thumb|150px|Man from 1000 to 1100 AD.]]For men, the tunic was still popular, and often ornamented with trim or expensive [[fur]]s. Towards the end of the century, a garment much like modern shorts became popular for a short time (see illustration). Long tunics began to be used on formal occasions. The braccos began to be cut tighter, changing into more of leggings, but the old style bound to the leg remained popular as well.

Shoes were still flimsy by modern standards, and like the rest of English costume became increasingly ornamented.

==Clothing in the Renaissance==

==Industrial-Age Clothing==

==Modern Clothes==

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Clothing]]

Clothing

2010-08-10T00:00:41Z

JacobB: this material has remained on this page unfinished for years. it remains in the page history for the author, or another author, to re-insert upon completion

Clothing, in the broadest sense, refers to materials that cover the body which provide [[warmth]], [[shelter]], [[hygiene]], and/or [[modesty]]. Clothing can be made of any number of materials, including plant fibers (such as [[cotton]]), animal hides or fibers (such as [[wool]] or [[fur]]), and artificial textiles (such as [[polyester]] or [[spandex]]). The vast variety of clothing speaks to the diversity of human [[culture]]s and [[behavior]], with different modes of clothing being reserved for [[work]], certain socioeconomic [[class]]es, and [[children]].

==See Also==
[[History of Clothing]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-08-06T01:50:14Z

JacobB: /* Decrypt */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''
----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a "1-2-4-8" geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Definition by example seems best here. Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list. You wouldn't request a definition for "List of Words beginning with G", so why are you demanding a definition for "Conservative term"? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you? We're not using them in any aberrant way. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. "List of Words beginning with G" is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what "conservative" means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the "excellent scholarship presented in this essay" smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a "conservative word" was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

"AmandaBunting" (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk. We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology. It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you. Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
-

== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

: "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

== Research method ==

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Suggestion? ==

What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==

===Selection bias===
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: 

<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Probability</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>1/15</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>2/15</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>4/15</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>8/15</td></tr></table>

For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

: Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===An unbiased test===
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. 

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>

: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.

:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===Table of random words===
{|class="collapsible collapsed"
!500 words
|-
|1 economics
2 storeroom
3 hunkers
4 sufficing
5 coffeehouses
6 stalagmites
7 therapy
8 sanitation
9 cheapskates
10 Caesareans
11 ringmaster
12 acclimate
13 penology
14 verandah
15 caregivers
16 fed
17 disengaged
18 whitecaps
19 dissertation
20 consignment
21 chainsaws
22 speeds
23 kinfolk
24 caribous
25 hobbyists
26 coefficients
27 protuberance
28 morphemes
29 Caroline
30 millionaires
31 recyclable
32 wilts
33 unreconstructed
34 chandeliers
35 palomino
36 joysticks
37 volleys
38 cajoling
39 bucksaws
40 spars
41 portaged
42 acoustically
43 humanize
44 hybridize
45 tipsters
46 overprices
47 marksmanship
48 fezes
49 depressant
50 auctioned
51 flamethrower
52 biking
53 artistic
54 agribusiness
55 jottings
56 pedicures
57 Cordilleras
58 slots
59 recording
60 unrealistic
61 rationalism
62 peacekeeping
63 aromatherapy
64 jackknife
65 champagne
66 horrendous
67 Quasimodo
68 excavator
69 chowders
70 arts
71 configure
72 civic
73 telegraphy
74 sweepstakes
75 euphoric
76 strategy
77 subgroup
78 shouting
79 gusher
80 telemarketing
81 glucose
82 booties
83 preponderated
84 manures
85 outspokenness
86 wiener
87 embeds
88 amped
89 sternums
90 empathy
91 cognomina
92 colitis
93 kimono
94 retched
95 singletons
96 megaphoned
97 respelled
98 Hindus
99 squiggle
100 irrigates
101 reconstructions
102 deceptiveness
103 colonialism
104 missioned
105 dyes
106 maladroit
107 tents
108 turfs
109 generalization
110 seamanship
111 duffers
112 scruffier
113 pollinate
114 bobcats
115 achieved
116 exerted
117 flapjack
118 Independence
119 lucidity
120 indenturing
121 enumerable
122 disenchanted
123 flashback
124 trilogies
125 colloquially
126 Colby
127 killjoys
128 lifelines
129 hydrotherapy
130 psychoanalysis
131 memorializing
132 bronchitis
133 rink
134 automobiles
135 dandy
136 schoolmarms
137 debriefing
138 glands
139 oceanography
140 jetted
141 hurdler
142 dependability
143 tactician
144 rotor
145 liturgies
146 quantified
147 wests
148 quitters
149 ocarinas
150 betting
151 apathetically
152 smoggier
153 Xenia
154 saris
155 dupe
156 voodooism
157 optimize
158 particularization
159 funereally
160 masterminding
161 capsizes
162 orchestrates
163 uncivilized
164 emphasized
165 skyrocket
166 plagiarist
167 politicoes
168 streptococci
169 pantsuits
170 waving
171 decontaminates
172 teensy
173 taxonomy
174 proselytizes
175 drollness
176 expectoration
177 legmen
178 modulations
179 diploma
180 Brandy
181 radar
182 pushiest
183 drill
184 lush
185 temperas
186 musicals
187 wheal
188 horticulture
189 cancan
190 jocularity
191 caramels
192 bipolar
193 sophisticated
194 injudicious
195 emulsion
196 ignore
197 cannonballed
198 swastika
199 overachievers
200 rubella
201 chuckhole
202 ersatz
203 breeziness
204 climaxes
205 explosiveness
206 empathizing
207 jumps
208 secularizing
209 sequoia
210 bibliography
211 prettying
212 bouldered
213 authorship
214 vocalizing
215 tarpons
216 camisoles
217 cowpox
218 tans
219 breathable
220 machines
221 tycoon
222 flicking
223 squishes
224 semiprofessional
225 feline
226 seedling
227 hankie
228 entitlement
229 abscissa
230 derisive
231 romance
232 overprice
233 beads
234 stipple
235 Kitty
236 jewelled
237 mascaraed
238 dissociation
239 moments
240 Spica
241 quaking
242 legislation
243 wobbly
244 scorches
245 books
246 gastrointestinal
247 finked
248 renegotiates
249 flautists
250 wrongheadedness
251 allergenic
252 squishiest
253 kickoffs
254 mecca
255 disses
256 woodwinds
257 discotheques
258 replacements
259 tomahawks
260 voluptuaries
261 salon
262 eliciting
263 resale
264 soporific
265 dosage
266 smokestacks
267 rationalists
268 subsumed
269 futzes
270 minutemen
271 stingrays
272 marathoner
273 vagina
274 propellers
275 rooftops
276 sensationalist
277 bluejackets
278 individualize
279 hyphenating
280 Xanthippe
281 federated
282 amortize
283 airfare
284 hyphenates
285 syncopates
286 sermonizing
287 biochemistry
288 babysat
289 yellows
290 riskier
291 cassocks
292 stated
293 Cordoba
294 Slinky
295 eventfully
296 nines
297 blabbermouths
298 fraternizes
299 bucked
300 Boolean
301 bivalve
302 ricochetted
303 toys
304 toted
305 commissars
306 cushioning
307 redeploy
308 poignancy
309 variegating
310 snuffbox
311 stoplight
312 biochemists
313 bicycling
314 disenfranchised
315 nosing
316 enlightenment
317 knockout
318 resurgent
319 pediments
320 skyscrapers
321 treatments
322 polio
323 flashbulbs
324 empower
325 rounding
326 pervasive
327 humped
328 oxymora
329 freebie
330 passageway
331 barfing
332 motorists
333 triglycerides
334 Mayans
335 stopped
336 kidnapper
337 pensioning
338 foreclosures
339 Yankees
340 manifestoing
341 predictor
342 Delawares
343 librettos
344 panoply
345 angstroms
346 jodhpurs
347 backpedal
348 sugars
349 preclude
350 unravelling
351 Lilliput
352 motivator
353 enslavement
354 pencilling
355 flukey
356 amoral
357 depository
358 unemotional
359 stumpy
360 cartons
361 gal
362 ignitions
363 malingered
364 spotlighted
365 photographic
366 abnegated
367 dashing
368 atrocious
369 inanities
370 derricks
371 mountaineer
372 inseminate
373 sacrosanct
374 modernize
375 specializations
376 obliging
377 heckles
378 baccalaureates
379 bluebirds
380 lengthiest
381 octets
382 physiotherapist
383 disorganizing
384 toffees
385 unfurling
386 abnegate
387 bathrobe
388 socked
389 crepe
390 polkas
391 overwriting
392 punned
393 platoons
394 infrared
395 ensuring
396 decimate
397 baggiest
398 plungers
399 trampolining
400 centigram
401 Topsy
402 epochal
403 boogies
404 showrooms
405 pianofortes
406 Orphic
407 logbooks
408 amphibious
409 rapprochements
410 terms
411 Kalmyk
412 petering
413 geocentric
414 stills
415 ethnologist
416 exec
417 flairs
418 likableness
419 rods
420 melange
421 graduated
422 ante
423 voluminously
424 impaled
425 cognacs
426 yups
427 comfiest
428 strychnine
429 subsoiled
430 conics
431 Salish
432 windsocks
433 rutabaga
434 vacuumed
435 maestri
436 podiatrist
437 restructured
438 metrically
439 motorcade
440 zipping
441 unmoral
442 electioneered
443 minibikes
444 trillion
445 sudsier
446 actuator
447 acing
448 masochism
449 softeners
450 cocksucker
451 brig
452 verbs
453 buccaneer
454 confessed
455 filibustered
456 rearmed
457 melodramatics
458 swivelled
459 veggies
460 monochrome
461 hellos
462 escalators
463 Seyfert
464 bushwhack
465 encapsulation
466 combining
467 realists
468 playgrounds
469 teenage
470 glandular
471 tot
472 cyclical
473 tinsmith
474 commitment
475 undersells
476 orthopaedics
477 yardstick
478 Vivian
479 peppy
480 swatted
481 earlobes
482 snapshots
483 nitpicker
484 unities
485 depressants
486 briefing
487 halo
488 watermarking
489 electronics
490 inadequates
491 ghosted
492 rapscallions
493 snorkeler
494 percentages
495 relapsing
496 facet
497 inconsistently
498 takeout
499 acidify
500 password
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''
{|class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
!word
!date
!class
|-
|monsignor||align="right"|1607||C
|-
|productive||align="right"|1612||C
|-
|alertly||align="right"|1618||C
|-
|inconsistent||align="right"|1620||C
|-
|numerical||align="right"|1628||C
|-
|interlock||align="right"|1632||C
|-
|platoons||align="right"|1637||C
|-
|forevermore||align="right"|1641||C
|-
|identification||align="right"|1644||C
|-
|untenable||align="right"|1647||C
|-
|reversible||align="right"|1648||C
|-
|authentication||align="right"|1652||C
|-
|monotheistic||align="right"|1660||C
|-
|constructive||align="right"|1680||C
|-
|alphabetize||align="right"|1691||C
|-
|misconduct||align="right"|1705||C
|-
|propagandists||align="right"|1718||C
|-
|revelations||align="right"|1729||C
|-
|guaranteed||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|cohesiveness||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|systematizing||align="right"|1767||C
|-
|letdown||align="right"|1768||C
|-
|dissident||align="right"|1769||C
|-
|diagramming||align="right"|1785||C
|-
|backhanded||align="right"|1800||C
|-
|autocratically||align="right"|1823||C
|-
|socialistic||align="right"|1827||C
|-
|Mormonisms||align="right"|1830||C
|-
|westernize||align="right"|1837||C
|-
|trademarks||align="right"|1838||C
|-
|propagandized||align="right"|1844||C
|-
|graffito||align="right"|1851||C
|-
|Americans||align="right"|1855||C
|-
|optimize||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|outdistancing||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|rogues||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|birthrates||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|slob||align="right"|1861||C
|-
|quantifier||align="right"|1876||C
|-
|implode||align="right"|1881||C
|-
|housemother||align="right"|1882||C
|-
|scantier||align="right"|1600||
|-
|sierras||align="right"|1600||
|-
|arena||align="right"|1600||
|-
|toddled||align="right"|1600||
|-
|eventful||align="right"|1600||
|-
|catheter||align="right"|1601||
|-
|primarily||align="right"|1601||
|-
|labeling||align="right"|1601||
|-
|copings||align="right"|1601||
|-
|Pooh||align="right"|1602||
|-
|respectively||align="right"|1602||
|-
|embroiling||align="right"|1603||
|-
|haloes||align="right"|1603||
|-
|Iliad||align="right"|1603||
|-
|enthusiasm||align="right"|1603||
|-
|dragoons||align="right"|1604||
|-
|promised||align="right"|1604||
|-
|recollecting||align="right"|1604||
|-
|stentorian||align="right"|1605||
|-
|rivaling||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impregnates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|touchy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impassive||align="right"|1605||
|-
|immediacy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|literary||align="right"|1605||
|-
|animosities||align="right"|1605||
|-
|volatile||align="right"|1605||
|-
|vegetates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|acclaiming||align="right"|1606||
|-
|onlooker||align="right"|1606||
|-
|sides||align="right"|1606||
|-
|wisher||align="right"|1607||
|-
|melancholia||align="right"|1607||
|-
|tab||align="right"|1607||
|-
|typical||align="right"|1609||
|-
|casuist||align="right"|1609||
|-
|bucolic||align="right"|1609||
|-
|footfalls||align="right"|1610||
|-
|bison||align="right"|1611||
|-
|lambing||align="right"|1611||
|-
|ticketed||align="right"|1611||
|-
|incompatibilities||align="right"|1611||
|-
|demonstrators||align="right"|1611||
|-
|reproduces||align="right"|1611||
|-
|longish||align="right"|1611||
|-
|amalgamations||align="right"|1612||
|-
|bailing||align="right"|1613||
|-
|caste||align="right"|1613||
|-
|convulses||align="right"|1614||
|-
|abscess||align="right"|1615||
|-
|valise||align="right"|1615||
|-
|cult||align="right"|1617||
|-
|hesitancy||align="right"|1617||
|-
|drill||align="right"|1619||
|-
|blotchy||align="right"|1619||
|-
|urban||align="right"|1619||
|-
|appositeness||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingratiated||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingrate||align="right"|1622||
|-
|diplomata||align="right"|1622||
|-
|exporters||align="right"|1623||
|-
|drolly||align="right"|1623||
|-
|adrift||align="right"|1624||
|-
|powwow||align="right"|1624||
|-
|oaf||align="right"|1625||
|-
|preconceptions||align="right"|1625||
|-
|ruse||align="right"|1625||
|-
|abominating||align="right"|1628||
|-
|dodo||align="right"|1628||
|-
|discriminated||align="right"|1628||
|-
|biassing||align="right"|1628||
|-
|enslaved||align="right"|1628||
|-
|backwaters||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromic||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromes||align="right"|1629||
|-
|tussles||align="right"|1629||
|-
|correspondents||align="right"|1630||
|-
|underrates||align="right"|1632||
|-
|underrate||align="right"|1632||
|-
|characterized||align="right"|1633||
|-
|etcher||align="right"|1634||
|-
|labium||align="right"|1634||
|-
|fluctuates||align="right"|1634||
|-
|morocco||align="right"|1634||
|-
|circumnavigated||align="right"|1634||
|-
|Anglican||align="right"|1635||
|-
|graphically||align="right"|1637||
|-
|millenniums||align="right"|1638||
|-
|domesticating||align="right"|1639||
|-
|pharmaceutical||align="right"|1640||
|-
|onus||align="right"|1640||
|-
|feints||align="right"|1644||
|-
|scavenge||align="right"|1644||
|-
|malls||align="right"|1644||
|-
|salaciously||align="right"|1645||
|-
|additional||align="right"|1646||
|-
|nonuser||align="right"|1646||
|-
|predisposing||align="right"|1646||
|-
|temperamentally||align="right"|1646||
|-
|invigorate||align="right"|1646||
|-
|protuberances||align="right"|1646||
|-
|disinclines||align="right"|1647||
|-
|castanet||align="right"|1647||
|-
|piloting||align="right"|1649||
|-
|leniently||align="right"|1652||
|-
|melange||align="right"|1653||
|-
|dialling||align="right"|1653||
|-
|naively||align="right"|1654||
|-
|siesta||align="right"|1655||
|-
|collectives||align="right"|1655||
|-
|quibbles||align="right"|1656||
|-
|dawdler||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmologies||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmology||align="right"|1656||
|-
|morbid||align="right"|1656||
|-
|inconvenienced||align="right"|1656||
|-
|numerating||align="right"|1657||
|-
|incapacitate||align="right"|1657||
|-
|overwrite||align="right"|1658||
|-
|horrendous||align="right"|1659||
|-
|tableau||align="right"|1660||
|-
|derisively||align="right"|1662||
|-
|disk||align="right"|1664||
|-
|diverging||align="right"|1665||
|-
|rotundity||align="right"|1665||
|-
|cultivators||align="right"|1665||
|-
|maroon||align="right"|1666||
|-
|stunning||align="right"|1667||
|-
|interleave||align="right"|1668||
|-
|globes||align="right"|1668||
|-
|hick||align="right"|1669||
|-
|realty||align="right"|1670||
|-
|belated||align="right"|1670||
|-
|punning||align="right"|1670||
|-
|haphazardly||align="right"|1671||
|-
|wader||align="right"|1673||
|-
|resilient||align="right"|1674||
|-
|auk||align="right"|1674||
|-
|priggish||align="right"|1676||
|-
|bungalow||align="right"|1676||
|-
|masqueraded||align="right"|1677||
|-
|configuring||align="right"|1677||
|-
|masterstroke||align="right"|1679||
|-
|yaws||align="right"|1679||
|-
|ganglions||align="right"|1681||
|-
|kidnaps||align="right"|1682||
|-
|shivery||align="right"|1683||
|-
|whaler||align="right"|1684||
|-
|bewilder||align="right"|1684||
|-
|roughshod||align="right"|1688||
|-
|bluebird||align="right"|1688||
|-
|toothbrushes||align="right"|1690||
|-
|romance||align="right"|1690||
|-
|adeptness||align="right"|1691||
|-
|dowsing||align="right"|1691||
|-
|processioned||align="right"|1691||
|-
|missioned||align="right"|1692||
|-
|vessels||align="right"|1694||
|-
|flabbiness||align="right"|1694||
|-
|penmanship||align="right"|1695||
|-
|Ojibwa||align="right"|1700||
|-
|actualized||align="right"|1701||
|-
|established||align="right"|1702||
|-
|copped||align="right"|1704||
|-
|liability||align="right"|1705||
|-
|sniggers||align="right"|1706||
|-
|dyspeptic||align="right"|1706||
|-
|crunch||align="right"|1706||
|-
|hibiscuses||align="right"|1706||
|-
|stencil||align="right"|1707||
|-
|quadruplet||align="right"|1709||
|-
|primness||align="right"|1709||
|-
|stocks||align="right"|1709||
|-
|leaseholds||align="right"|1710||
|-
|rheumatic||align="right"|1711||
|-
|papilla||align="right"|1713||
|-
|presentiments||align="right"|1714||
|-
|tantrum||align="right"|1714||
|-
|needling||align="right"|1715||
|-
|impersonating||align="right"|1715||
|-
|settees||align="right"|1716||
|-
|hustling||align="right"|1720||
|-
|unassuming||align="right"|1722||
|-
|Houyhnhnm||align="right"|1726||
|-
|knotholes||align="right"|1726||
|-
|Lilliput||align="right"|1726||
|-
|soporifics||align="right"|1727||
|-
|Shinto||align="right"|1727||
|-
|bludgeons||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pillboxes||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pantheistic||align="right"|1732||
|-
|vampires||align="right"|1732||
|-
|palaver||align="right"|1735||
|-
|Stilton||align="right"|1736||
|-
|incriminates||align="right"|1736||
|-
|philanders||align="right"|1737||
|-
|exiled||align="right"|1737||
|-
|coterie||align="right"|1738||
|-
|cantaloupe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|wham||align="right"|1739||
|-
|swipe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|icings||align="right"|1740||
|-
|segueing||align="right"|1740||
|-
|insulates||align="right"|1741||
|-
|flatiron||align="right"|1743||
|-
|uncharacteristic||align="right"|1748||
|-
|cornmeal||align="right"|1749||
|-
|develop||align="right"|1750||
|-
|spindling||align="right"|1750||
|-
|measurements||align="right"|1751||
|-
|pompon||align="right"|1751||
|-
|fanciers||align="right"|1751||
|-
|lumberyard||align="right"|1753||
|-
|riffles||align="right"|1754||
|-
|personification||align="right"|1755||
|-
|mesquites||align="right"|1759||
|-
|maniacs||align="right"|1763||
|-
|pronouncing||align="right"|1764||
|-
|frivolity||align="right"|1764||
|-
|aboriginals||align="right"|1767||
|-
|Afghans||align="right"|1767||
|-
|paws||align="right"|1769||
|-
|mynas||align="right"|1769||
|-
|modernization||align="right"|1770||
|-
|coagulants||align="right"|1770||
|-
|hairpin||align="right"|1771||
|-
|fagged||align="right"|1772||
|-
|Ta||align="right"|1772||
|-
|propertied||align="right"|1772||
|-
|fagging||align="right"|1772||
|-
|pups||align="right"|1773||
|-
|gibbon||align="right"|1774||
|-
|gecko||align="right"|1774||
|-
|passé||align="right"|1775||
|-
|clannish||align="right"|1776||
|-
|gnu||align="right"|1777||
|-
|gasses||align="right"|1779||
|-
|balalaika||align="right"|1780||
|-
|congressman||align="right"|1780||
|-
|fumigate||align="right"|1781||
|-
|varying||align="right"|1781||
|-
|minutiae||align="right"|1782||
|-
|effervesce||align="right"|1784||
|-
|bangle||align="right"|1787||
|-
|letups||align="right"|1787||
|-
|thyroids||align="right"|1787||
|-
|loots||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Hollands||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Dolly||align="right"|1790||
|-
|weakfish||align="right"|1791||
|-
|rutabagas||align="right"|1791||
|-
|equalizer||align="right"|1792||
|-
|steeplechase||align="right"|1793||
|-
|daredevils||align="right"|1794||
|-
|commentated||align="right"|1794||
|-
|embeds||align="right"|1794||
|-
|telegraphy||align="right"|1795||
|-
|soled||align="right"|1795||
|-
|allover||align="right"|1796||
|-
|titanium||align="right"|1796||
|-
|quizzically||align="right"|1797||
|-
|stashes||align="right"|1797||
|-
|kilogram||align="right"|1797||
|-
|belittled||align="right"|1797||
|-
|Mon||align="right"|1798||
|-
|bibliographies||align="right"|1802||
|-
|fezes||align="right"|1803||
|-
|dressmaking||align="right"|1803||
|-
|condoned||align="right"|1805||
|-
|coarsening||align="right"|1805||
|-
|gumbos||align="right"|1805||
|-
|peewee||align="right"|1806||
|-
|lassos||align="right"|1807||
|-
|Pueblos||align="right"|1808||
|-
|blinder||align="right"|1809||
|-
|eddied||align="right"|1810||
|-
|scurrying||align="right"|1810||
|-
|milliliter||align="right"|1810||
|-
|miffed||align="right"|1811||
|-
|quintet||align="right"|1811||
|-
|aluminum||align="right"|1812||
|-
|shawling||align="right"|1812||
|-
|tossup||align="right"|1812||
|-
|opalescent||align="right"|1813||
|-
|vocalic||align="right"|1814||
|-
|Swahili||align="right"|1814||
|-
|nocturnes||align="right"|1814||
|-
|underpaying||align="right"|1817||
|-
|diarist||align="right"|1818||
|-
|intellectualizes||align="right"|1819||
|-
|stethoscope||align="right"|1820||
|-
|bloodstain||align="right"|1820||
|-
|squawk||align="right"|1821||
|-
|suffragist||align="right"|1822||
|-
|caffeine||align="right"|1823||
|-
|flysheet||align="right"|1825||
|-
|augmented||align="right"|1825||
|-
|subway||align="right"|1825||
|-
|crotchety||align="right"|1825||
|-
|pullout||align="right"|1825||
|-
|beadier||align="right"|1826||
|-
|mammal||align="right"|1826||
|-
|chaffed||align="right"|1827||
|-
|clinics||align="right"|1827||
|-
|recruitment||align="right"|1828||
|-
|mas||align="right"|1829||
|-
|mesmerizing||align="right"|1829||
|-
|constitutionals||align="right"|1829||
|-
|cahoots||align="right"|1829||
|-
|homeopathic||align="right"|1830||
|-
|pterodactyl||align="right"|1830||
|-
|cadres||align="right"|1830||
|-
|hex||align="right"|1830||
|-
|chipmunks||align="right"|1832||
|-
|Horus||align="right"|1832||
|-
|toothpastes||align="right"|1832||
|-
|cottonmouths||align="right"|1832||
|-
|underplays||align="right"|1833||
|-
|dorsals||align="right"|1834||
|-
|cetaceans||align="right"|1835||
|-
|wholeheartedly||align="right"|1836||
|-
|creepily||align="right"|1836||
|-
|étude||align="right"|1837||
|-
|Confucianism||align="right"|1837||
|-
|scatting||align="right"|1838||
|-
|smokestacks||align="right"|1838||
|-
|pretzel||align="right"|1838||
|-
|upheaval||align="right"|1838||
|-
|Bunker||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mushier||align="right"|1839||
|-
|bushings||align="right"|1839||
|-
|OK||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mesa||align="right"|1840||
|-
|wastrel||align="right"|1841||
|-
|pyromaniac||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Assam||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Spitz||align="right"|1842||
|-
|wisteria||align="right"|1842||
|-
|cubbyhole||align="right"|1842||
|-
|kinkiest||align="right"|1844||
|-
|Limoges||align="right"|1844||
|-
|taillights||align="right"|1844||
|-
|subgroups||align="right"|1845||
|-
|garnisheeing||align="right"|1846||
|-
|Joe||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tobogganed||align="right"|1846||
|-
|snobby||align="right"|1846||
|-
|strapless||align="right"|1846||
|-
|cheekily||align="right"|1846||
|-
|orgiastic||align="right"|1846||
|-
|funnest||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tactlessness||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tailcoats||align="right"|1847||
|-
|gynecologists||align="right"|1847||
|-
|cartography||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tenderfeet||align="right"|1849||
|-
|laterals||align="right"|1851||
|-
|educations||align="right"|1851||
|-
|trunks||align="right"|1851||
|-
|hangars||align="right"|1852||
|-
|colloids||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimits||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimited||align="right"|1852||
|-
|davenport||align="right"|1853||
|-
|Russians||align="right"|1854||
|-
|abnormality||align="right"|1854||
|-
|rainfall||align="right"|1854||
|-
|Brewer||align="right"|1855||
|-
|hazings||align="right"|1855||
|-
|vendetta||align="right"|1855||
|-
|pullouts||align="right"|1855||
|-
|warlords||align="right"|1856||
|-
|seismographs||align="right"|1858||
|-
|interbreeding||align="right"|1859||
|-
|emulsification||align="right"|1859||
|-
|pub||align="right"|1859||
|-
|soulfulness||align="right"|1860||
|-
|Darwinian||align="right"|1860||
|-
|flautist||align="right"|1860||
|-
|pipelines||align="right"|1860||
|-
|ewe||align="right"|1861||
|-
|bellboy||align="right"|1861||
|-
|trapezes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|ewes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|railroading||align="right"|1862||
|-
|isomorphic||align="right"|1862||
|-
|canapé||align="right"|1863||
|-
|columns||align="right"|1863||
|-
|octets||align="right"|1864||
|-
|coffeecakes||align="right"|1865||
|-
|goulash||align="right"|1866||
|-
|sudsier||align="right"|1866||
|-
|maverick||align="right"|1867||
|-
|safaris||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rangier||align="right"|1868||
|-
|mailbox||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rotting||align="right"|1870||
|-
|saprophyte||align="right"|1870||
|-
|agenda||align="right"|1871||
|-
|roomers||align="right"|1871||
|-
|masterminds||align="right"|1872||
|-
|deforest||align="right"|1874||
|-
|spaghetti||align="right"|1874||
|-
|intercollegiate||align="right"|1874||
|-
|Helicon||align="right"|1875||
|-
|dermatitis||align="right"|1876||
|-
|semiprivate||align="right"|1876||
|-
|toniest||align="right"|1877||
|-
|supplies||align="right"|1878||
|-
|quirking||align="right"|1878||
|-
|wagged||align="right"|1879||
|-
|onionskin||align="right"|1879||
|-
|bacillus||align="right"|1879||
|-
|clobber||align="right"|1879||
|-
|steamrollered||align="right"|1879||
|-
|alumna||align="right"|1879||
|-
|locoweed||align="right"|1879||
|-
|toeholds||align="right"|1880||
|-
|paternalism||align="right"|1881||
|-
|adrenals||align="right"|1882||
|-
|syndicating||align="right"|1882||
|-
|winery||align="right"|1882||
|-
|interface||align="right"|1882||
|-
|infantryman||align="right"|1883||
|-
|worldlier||align="right"|1883||
|-
|shyest||align="right"|1884||
|-
|showdowns||align="right"|1884||
|-
|oilfield||align="right"|1884||
|-
|words||align="right"|1884||
|-
|fixating||align="right"|1885||
|-
|micron||align="right"|1885||
|-
|stagehand||align="right"|1885||
|-
|contraceptives||align="right"|1886||
|-
|sensitization||align="right"|1887||
|-
|parachutists||align="right"|1888||
|-
|sandblaster||align="right"|1888||
|-
|erogenous||align="right"|1889||
|-
|lactating||align="right"|1889||
|-
|psychopathics||align="right"|1890||
|-
|reactor||align="right"|1890||
|-
|unsnaps||align="right"|1892||
|-
|decolletes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|inbound||align="right"|1894||
|-
|marihuana||align="right"|1894||
|-
|encapsulated||align="right"|1894||
|-
|erythrocytes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|sequinned||align="right"|1894||
|-
|defrosted||align="right"|1895||
|-
|sacks||align="right"|1895||
|-
|phonemes||align="right"|1896||
|-
|mescaline||align="right"|1896||
|-
|ions||align="right"|1896||
|-
|midyear||align="right"|1896||
|-
|redwoods||align="right"|1897||
|-
|happenstances||align="right"|1897||
|-
|sandhog||align="right"|1897||
|-
|eggs||align="right"|1898||
|-
|taxicab||align="right"|1899||
|-
|concoction||align="right"|1675||
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
{|class="wikitable"
!
!16s
!17s
!18s
!Σ
|-
!conservative words
|15||9||17||41
|-
!all words
|176||114||210||500
|-
!percentage of conservative words
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.

::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "''best''" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

== Destruction of words ==

Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==

For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of
the conservative words:

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!claimed
|20||40||80||160||13
|-
!recount
|20||40||81||150||14
|}

An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!pre Segway
|14||28||56||112||6
|-
!post Segway
|15||28||56||124||6
|-
!my count
|15||29||57||114||6
|}

How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.

But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !

After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...

So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== Too Good to be True ==

Imagine the hypothesis: There are as many male writers as there are female
ones.

To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,
the hypothesis is true.

But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we
reach round 300?

Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being
finished, but we can't conclude anything!

Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.

Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1

So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.

And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.

When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!

Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.

Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating
''best conservative new words''.

At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be bigger than for each other combination,
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields odds of
1:2,000,000.

Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not
believable, and don't support your claims made in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Disbelief of something because it is "too good to be true" is not a strong argument against it. Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example. Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.

: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil. Of course it is not a random process. That would be silly. But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn. We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells. Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== A summary with graphs... ==

On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: <blockquote>'''Conservapedia's Law''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. 
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. </blockquote> This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''
<blockquote>''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''</blockquote>

{|
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]
|-
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of ≈ 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]
|-
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]
|-
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]
|}
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.

I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!

{|
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]
|-
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does not show a geometric progression.
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]
|-
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century ≈ 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]
|-
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 conservative words, and a general distribution of the creation of words.
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|However, if one maps the percentage of words in - e.g. - a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]
|}

Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:<blockquote>That's a
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I
would have identified as liberal in nature. But very few of these words
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) </blockquote>

I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)
pattern.

Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. But quantity is no substitute or quality. You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil. Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil. Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about. Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend?
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the ''best conservative words''.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decrypt ==

Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the "Bombe"). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.
:: As for "the British are notoriously weak in math": you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so. If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!

::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, "a non-Newtonian fluid". He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::Brilliant logic. 17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any. As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact? If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple "web-like" effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story. I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-08-06T01:46:10Z

JacobB: Undo revision 801559 by JacobB (Talk) - my bad, didn't realize was talk page. sorry!

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''
----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a "1-2-4-8" geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Definition by example seems best here. Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list. You wouldn't request a definition for "List of Words beginning with G", so why are you demanding a definition for "Conservative term"? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you? We're not using them in any aberrant way. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. "List of Words beginning with G" is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what "conservative" means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the "excellent scholarship presented in this essay" smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a "conservative word" was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

"AmandaBunting" (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk. We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology. It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you. Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
-

== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

: "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

== Research method ==

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Suggestion? ==

What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==

===Selection bias===
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: 

<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Probability</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>1/15</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>2/15</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>4/15</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>8/15</td></tr></table>

For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

: Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===An unbiased test===
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. 

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>

: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.

:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===Table of random words===
{|class="collapsible collapsed"
!500 words
|-
|1 economics
2 storeroom
3 hunkers
4 sufficing
5 coffeehouses
6 stalagmites
7 therapy
8 sanitation
9 cheapskates
10 Caesareans
11 ringmaster
12 acclimate
13 penology
14 verandah
15 caregivers
16 fed
17 disengaged
18 whitecaps
19 dissertation
20 consignment
21 chainsaws
22 speeds
23 kinfolk
24 caribous
25 hobbyists
26 coefficients
27 protuberance
28 morphemes
29 Caroline
30 millionaires
31 recyclable
32 wilts
33 unreconstructed
34 chandeliers
35 palomino
36 joysticks
37 volleys
38 cajoling
39 bucksaws
40 spars
41 portaged
42 acoustically
43 humanize
44 hybridize
45 tipsters
46 overprices
47 marksmanship
48 fezes
49 depressant
50 auctioned
51 flamethrower
52 biking
53 artistic
54 agribusiness
55 jottings
56 pedicures
57 Cordilleras
58 slots
59 recording
60 unrealistic
61 rationalism
62 peacekeeping
63 aromatherapy
64 jackknife
65 champagne
66 horrendous
67 Quasimodo
68 excavator
69 chowders
70 arts
71 configure
72 civic
73 telegraphy
74 sweepstakes
75 euphoric
76 strategy
77 subgroup
78 shouting
79 gusher
80 telemarketing
81 glucose
82 booties
83 preponderated
84 manures
85 outspokenness
86 wiener
87 embeds
88 amped
89 sternums
90 empathy
91 cognomina
92 colitis
93 kimono
94 retched
95 singletons
96 megaphoned
97 respelled
98 Hindus
99 squiggle
100 irrigates
101 reconstructions
102 deceptiveness
103 colonialism
104 missioned
105 dyes
106 maladroit
107 tents
108 turfs
109 generalization
110 seamanship
111 duffers
112 scruffier
113 pollinate
114 bobcats
115 achieved
116 exerted
117 flapjack
118 Independence
119 lucidity
120 indenturing
121 enumerable
122 disenchanted
123 flashback
124 trilogies
125 colloquially
126 Colby
127 killjoys
128 lifelines
129 hydrotherapy
130 psychoanalysis
131 memorializing
132 bronchitis
133 rink
134 automobiles
135 dandy
136 schoolmarms
137 debriefing
138 glands
139 oceanography
140 jetted
141 hurdler
142 dependability
143 tactician
144 rotor
145 liturgies
146 quantified
147 wests
148 quitters
149 ocarinas
150 betting
151 apathetically
152 smoggier
153 Xenia
154 saris
155 dupe
156 voodooism
157 optimize
158 particularization
159 funereally
160 masterminding
161 capsizes
162 orchestrates
163 uncivilized
164 emphasized
165 skyrocket
166 plagiarist
167 politicoes
168 streptococci
169 pantsuits
170 waving
171 decontaminates
172 teensy
173 taxonomy
174 proselytizes
175 drollness
176 expectoration
177 legmen
178 modulations
179 diploma
180 Brandy
181 radar
182 pushiest
183 drill
184 lush
185 temperas
186 musicals
187 wheal
188 horticulture
189 cancan
190 jocularity
191 caramels
192 bipolar
193 sophisticated
194 injudicious
195 emulsion
196 ignore
197 cannonballed
198 swastika
199 overachievers
200 rubella
201 chuckhole
202 ersatz
203 breeziness
204 climaxes
205 explosiveness
206 empathizing
207 jumps
208 secularizing
209 sequoia
210 bibliography
211 prettying
212 bouldered
213 authorship
214 vocalizing
215 tarpons
216 camisoles
217 cowpox
218 tans
219 breathable
220 machines
221 tycoon
222 flicking
223 squishes
224 semiprofessional
225 feline
226 seedling
227 hankie
228 entitlement
229 abscissa
230 derisive
231 romance
232 overprice
233 beads
234 stipple
235 Kitty
236 jewelled
237 mascaraed
238 dissociation
239 moments
240 Spica
241 quaking
242 legislation
243 wobbly
244 scorches
245 books
246 gastrointestinal
247 finked
248 renegotiates
249 flautists
250 wrongheadedness
251 allergenic
252 squishiest
253 kickoffs
254 mecca
255 disses
256 woodwinds
257 discotheques
258 replacements
259 tomahawks
260 voluptuaries
261 salon
262 eliciting
263 resale
264 soporific
265 dosage
266 smokestacks
267 rationalists
268 subsumed
269 futzes
270 minutemen
271 stingrays
272 marathoner
273 vagina
274 propellers
275 rooftops
276 sensationalist
277 bluejackets
278 individualize
279 hyphenating
280 Xanthippe
281 federated
282 amortize
283 airfare
284 hyphenates
285 syncopates
286 sermonizing
287 biochemistry
288 babysat
289 yellows
290 riskier
291 cassocks
292 stated
293 Cordoba
294 Slinky
295 eventfully
296 nines
297 blabbermouths
298 fraternizes
299 bucked
300 Boolean
301 bivalve
302 ricochetted
303 toys
304 toted
305 commissars
306 cushioning
307 redeploy
308 poignancy
309 variegating
310 snuffbox
311 stoplight
312 biochemists
313 bicycling
314 disenfranchised
315 nosing
316 enlightenment
317 knockout
318 resurgent
319 pediments
320 skyscrapers
321 treatments
322 polio
323 flashbulbs
324 empower
325 rounding
326 pervasive
327 humped
328 oxymora
329 freebie
330 passageway
331 barfing
332 motorists
333 triglycerides
334 Mayans
335 stopped
336 kidnapper
337 pensioning
338 foreclosures
339 Yankees
340 manifestoing
341 predictor
342 Delawares
343 librettos
344 panoply
345 angstroms
346 jodhpurs
347 backpedal
348 sugars
349 preclude
350 unravelling
351 Lilliput
352 motivator
353 enslavement
354 pencilling
355 flukey
356 amoral
357 depository
358 unemotional
359 stumpy
360 cartons
361 gal
362 ignitions
363 malingered
364 spotlighted
365 photographic
366 abnegated
367 dashing
368 atrocious
369 inanities
370 derricks
371 mountaineer
372 inseminate
373 sacrosanct
374 modernize
375 specializations
376 obliging
377 heckles
378 baccalaureates
379 bluebirds
380 lengthiest
381 octets
382 physiotherapist
383 disorganizing
384 toffees
385 unfurling
386 abnegate
387 bathrobe
388 socked
389 crepe
390 polkas
391 overwriting
392 punned
393 platoons
394 infrared
395 ensuring
396 decimate
397 baggiest
398 plungers
399 trampolining
400 centigram
401 Topsy
402 epochal
403 boogies
404 showrooms
405 pianofortes
406 Orphic
407 logbooks
408 amphibious
409 rapprochements
410 terms
411 Kalmyk
412 petering
413 geocentric
414 stills
415 ethnologist
416 exec
417 flairs
418 likableness
419 rods
420 melange
421 graduated
422 ante
423 voluminously
424 impaled
425 cognacs
426 yups
427 comfiest
428 strychnine
429 subsoiled
430 conics
431 Salish
432 windsocks
433 rutabaga
434 vacuumed
435 maestri
436 podiatrist
437 restructured
438 metrically
439 motorcade
440 zipping
441 unmoral
442 electioneered
443 minibikes
444 trillion
445 sudsier
446 actuator
447 acing
448 masochism
449 softeners
450 cocksucker
451 brig
452 verbs
453 buccaneer
454 confessed
455 filibustered
456 rearmed
457 melodramatics
458 swivelled
459 veggies
460 monochrome
461 hellos
462 escalators
463 Seyfert
464 bushwhack
465 encapsulation
466 combining
467 realists
468 playgrounds
469 teenage
470 glandular
471 tot
472 cyclical
473 tinsmith
474 commitment
475 undersells
476 orthopaedics
477 yardstick
478 Vivian
479 peppy
480 swatted
481 earlobes
482 snapshots
483 nitpicker
484 unities
485 depressants
486 briefing
487 halo
488 watermarking
489 electronics
490 inadequates
491 ghosted
492 rapscallions
493 snorkeler
494 percentages
495 relapsing
496 facet
497 inconsistently
498 takeout
499 acidify
500 password
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''
{|class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
!word
!date
!class
|-
|monsignor||align="right"|1607||C
|-
|productive||align="right"|1612||C
|-
|alertly||align="right"|1618||C
|-
|inconsistent||align="right"|1620||C
|-
|numerical||align="right"|1628||C
|-
|interlock||align="right"|1632||C
|-
|platoons||align="right"|1637||C
|-
|forevermore||align="right"|1641||C
|-
|identification||align="right"|1644||C
|-
|untenable||align="right"|1647||C
|-
|reversible||align="right"|1648||C
|-
|authentication||align="right"|1652||C
|-
|monotheistic||align="right"|1660||C
|-
|constructive||align="right"|1680||C
|-
|alphabetize||align="right"|1691||C
|-
|misconduct||align="right"|1705||C
|-
|propagandists||align="right"|1718||C
|-
|revelations||align="right"|1729||C
|-
|guaranteed||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|cohesiveness||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|systematizing||align="right"|1767||C
|-
|letdown||align="right"|1768||C
|-
|dissident||align="right"|1769||C
|-
|diagramming||align="right"|1785||C
|-
|backhanded||align="right"|1800||C
|-
|autocratically||align="right"|1823||C
|-
|socialistic||align="right"|1827||C
|-
|Mormonisms||align="right"|1830||C
|-
|westernize||align="right"|1837||C
|-
|trademarks||align="right"|1838||C
|-
|propagandized||align="right"|1844||C
|-
|graffito||align="right"|1851||C
|-
|Americans||align="right"|1855||C
|-
|optimize||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|outdistancing||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|rogues||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|birthrates||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|slob||align="right"|1861||C
|-
|quantifier||align="right"|1876||C
|-
|implode||align="right"|1881||C
|-
|housemother||align="right"|1882||C
|-
|scantier||align="right"|1600||
|-
|sierras||align="right"|1600||
|-
|arena||align="right"|1600||
|-
|toddled||align="right"|1600||
|-
|eventful||align="right"|1600||
|-
|catheter||align="right"|1601||
|-
|primarily||align="right"|1601||
|-
|labeling||align="right"|1601||
|-
|copings||align="right"|1601||
|-
|Pooh||align="right"|1602||
|-
|respectively||align="right"|1602||
|-
|embroiling||align="right"|1603||
|-
|haloes||align="right"|1603||
|-
|Iliad||align="right"|1603||
|-
|enthusiasm||align="right"|1603||
|-
|dragoons||align="right"|1604||
|-
|promised||align="right"|1604||
|-
|recollecting||align="right"|1604||
|-
|stentorian||align="right"|1605||
|-
|rivaling||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impregnates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|touchy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impassive||align="right"|1605||
|-
|immediacy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|literary||align="right"|1605||
|-
|animosities||align="right"|1605||
|-
|volatile||align="right"|1605||
|-
|vegetates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|acclaiming||align="right"|1606||
|-
|onlooker||align="right"|1606||
|-
|sides||align="right"|1606||
|-
|wisher||align="right"|1607||
|-
|melancholia||align="right"|1607||
|-
|tab||align="right"|1607||
|-
|typical||align="right"|1609||
|-
|casuist||align="right"|1609||
|-
|bucolic||align="right"|1609||
|-
|footfalls||align="right"|1610||
|-
|bison||align="right"|1611||
|-
|lambing||align="right"|1611||
|-
|ticketed||align="right"|1611||
|-
|incompatibilities||align="right"|1611||
|-
|demonstrators||align="right"|1611||
|-
|reproduces||align="right"|1611||
|-
|longish||align="right"|1611||
|-
|amalgamations||align="right"|1612||
|-
|bailing||align="right"|1613||
|-
|caste||align="right"|1613||
|-
|convulses||align="right"|1614||
|-
|abscess||align="right"|1615||
|-
|valise||align="right"|1615||
|-
|cult||align="right"|1617||
|-
|hesitancy||align="right"|1617||
|-
|drill||align="right"|1619||
|-
|blotchy||align="right"|1619||
|-
|urban||align="right"|1619||
|-
|appositeness||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingratiated||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingrate||align="right"|1622||
|-
|diplomata||align="right"|1622||
|-
|exporters||align="right"|1623||
|-
|drolly||align="right"|1623||
|-
|adrift||align="right"|1624||
|-
|powwow||align="right"|1624||
|-
|oaf||align="right"|1625||
|-
|preconceptions||align="right"|1625||
|-
|ruse||align="right"|1625||
|-
|abominating||align="right"|1628||
|-
|dodo||align="right"|1628||
|-
|discriminated||align="right"|1628||
|-
|biassing||align="right"|1628||
|-
|enslaved||align="right"|1628||
|-
|backwaters||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromic||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromes||align="right"|1629||
|-
|tussles||align="right"|1629||
|-
|correspondents||align="right"|1630||
|-
|underrates||align="right"|1632||
|-
|underrate||align="right"|1632||
|-
|characterized||align="right"|1633||
|-
|etcher||align="right"|1634||
|-
|labium||align="right"|1634||
|-
|fluctuates||align="right"|1634||
|-
|morocco||align="right"|1634||
|-
|circumnavigated||align="right"|1634||
|-
|Anglican||align="right"|1635||
|-
|graphically||align="right"|1637||
|-
|millenniums||align="right"|1638||
|-
|domesticating||align="right"|1639||
|-
|pharmaceutical||align="right"|1640||
|-
|onus||align="right"|1640||
|-
|feints||align="right"|1644||
|-
|scavenge||align="right"|1644||
|-
|malls||align="right"|1644||
|-
|salaciously||align="right"|1645||
|-
|additional||align="right"|1646||
|-
|nonuser||align="right"|1646||
|-
|predisposing||align="right"|1646||
|-
|temperamentally||align="right"|1646||
|-
|invigorate||align="right"|1646||
|-
|protuberances||align="right"|1646||
|-
|disinclines||align="right"|1647||
|-
|castanet||align="right"|1647||
|-
|piloting||align="right"|1649||
|-
|leniently||align="right"|1652||
|-
|melange||align="right"|1653||
|-
|dialling||align="right"|1653||
|-
|naively||align="right"|1654||
|-
|siesta||align="right"|1655||
|-
|collectives||align="right"|1655||
|-
|quibbles||align="right"|1656||
|-
|dawdler||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmologies||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmology||align="right"|1656||
|-
|morbid||align="right"|1656||
|-
|inconvenienced||align="right"|1656||
|-
|numerating||align="right"|1657||
|-
|incapacitate||align="right"|1657||
|-
|overwrite||align="right"|1658||
|-
|horrendous||align="right"|1659||
|-
|tableau||align="right"|1660||
|-
|derisively||align="right"|1662||
|-
|disk||align="right"|1664||
|-
|diverging||align="right"|1665||
|-
|rotundity||align="right"|1665||
|-
|cultivators||align="right"|1665||
|-
|maroon||align="right"|1666||
|-
|stunning||align="right"|1667||
|-
|interleave||align="right"|1668||
|-
|globes||align="right"|1668||
|-
|hick||align="right"|1669||
|-
|realty||align="right"|1670||
|-
|belated||align="right"|1670||
|-
|punning||align="right"|1670||
|-
|haphazardly||align="right"|1671||
|-
|wader||align="right"|1673||
|-
|resilient||align="right"|1674||
|-
|auk||align="right"|1674||
|-
|priggish||align="right"|1676||
|-
|bungalow||align="right"|1676||
|-
|masqueraded||align="right"|1677||
|-
|configuring||align="right"|1677||
|-
|masterstroke||align="right"|1679||
|-
|yaws||align="right"|1679||
|-
|ganglions||align="right"|1681||
|-
|kidnaps||align="right"|1682||
|-
|shivery||align="right"|1683||
|-
|whaler||align="right"|1684||
|-
|bewilder||align="right"|1684||
|-
|roughshod||align="right"|1688||
|-
|bluebird||align="right"|1688||
|-
|toothbrushes||align="right"|1690||
|-
|romance||align="right"|1690||
|-
|adeptness||align="right"|1691||
|-
|dowsing||align="right"|1691||
|-
|processioned||align="right"|1691||
|-
|missioned||align="right"|1692||
|-
|vessels||align="right"|1694||
|-
|flabbiness||align="right"|1694||
|-
|penmanship||align="right"|1695||
|-
|Ojibwa||align="right"|1700||
|-
|actualized||align="right"|1701||
|-
|established||align="right"|1702||
|-
|copped||align="right"|1704||
|-
|liability||align="right"|1705||
|-
|sniggers||align="right"|1706||
|-
|dyspeptic||align="right"|1706||
|-
|crunch||align="right"|1706||
|-
|hibiscuses||align="right"|1706||
|-
|stencil||align="right"|1707||
|-
|quadruplet||align="right"|1709||
|-
|primness||align="right"|1709||
|-
|stocks||align="right"|1709||
|-
|leaseholds||align="right"|1710||
|-
|rheumatic||align="right"|1711||
|-
|papilla||align="right"|1713||
|-
|presentiments||align="right"|1714||
|-
|tantrum||align="right"|1714||
|-
|needling||align="right"|1715||
|-
|impersonating||align="right"|1715||
|-
|settees||align="right"|1716||
|-
|hustling||align="right"|1720||
|-
|unassuming||align="right"|1722||
|-
|Houyhnhnm||align="right"|1726||
|-
|knotholes||align="right"|1726||
|-
|Lilliput||align="right"|1726||
|-
|soporifics||align="right"|1727||
|-
|Shinto||align="right"|1727||
|-
|bludgeons||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pillboxes||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pantheistic||align="right"|1732||
|-
|vampires||align="right"|1732||
|-
|palaver||align="right"|1735||
|-
|Stilton||align="right"|1736||
|-
|incriminates||align="right"|1736||
|-
|philanders||align="right"|1737||
|-
|exiled||align="right"|1737||
|-
|coterie||align="right"|1738||
|-
|cantaloupe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|wham||align="right"|1739||
|-
|swipe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|icings||align="right"|1740||
|-
|segueing||align="right"|1740||
|-
|insulates||align="right"|1741||
|-
|flatiron||align="right"|1743||
|-
|uncharacteristic||align="right"|1748||
|-
|cornmeal||align="right"|1749||
|-
|develop||align="right"|1750||
|-
|spindling||align="right"|1750||
|-
|measurements||align="right"|1751||
|-
|pompon||align="right"|1751||
|-
|fanciers||align="right"|1751||
|-
|lumberyard||align="right"|1753||
|-
|riffles||align="right"|1754||
|-
|personification||align="right"|1755||
|-
|mesquites||align="right"|1759||
|-
|maniacs||align="right"|1763||
|-
|pronouncing||align="right"|1764||
|-
|frivolity||align="right"|1764||
|-
|aboriginals||align="right"|1767||
|-
|Afghans||align="right"|1767||
|-
|paws||align="right"|1769||
|-
|mynas||align="right"|1769||
|-
|modernization||align="right"|1770||
|-
|coagulants||align="right"|1770||
|-
|hairpin||align="right"|1771||
|-
|fagged||align="right"|1772||
|-
|Ta||align="right"|1772||
|-
|propertied||align="right"|1772||
|-
|fagging||align="right"|1772||
|-
|pups||align="right"|1773||
|-
|gibbon||align="right"|1774||
|-
|gecko||align="right"|1774||
|-
|passé||align="right"|1775||
|-
|clannish||align="right"|1776||
|-
|gnu||align="right"|1777||
|-
|gasses||align="right"|1779||
|-
|balalaika||align="right"|1780||
|-
|congressman||align="right"|1780||
|-
|fumigate||align="right"|1781||
|-
|varying||align="right"|1781||
|-
|minutiae||align="right"|1782||
|-
|effervesce||align="right"|1784||
|-
|bangle||align="right"|1787||
|-
|letups||align="right"|1787||
|-
|thyroids||align="right"|1787||
|-
|loots||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Hollands||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Dolly||align="right"|1790||
|-
|weakfish||align="right"|1791||
|-
|rutabagas||align="right"|1791||
|-
|equalizer||align="right"|1792||
|-
|steeplechase||align="right"|1793||
|-
|daredevils||align="right"|1794||
|-
|commentated||align="right"|1794||
|-
|embeds||align="right"|1794||
|-
|telegraphy||align="right"|1795||
|-
|soled||align="right"|1795||
|-
|allover||align="right"|1796||
|-
|titanium||align="right"|1796||
|-
|quizzically||align="right"|1797||
|-
|stashes||align="right"|1797||
|-
|kilogram||align="right"|1797||
|-
|belittled||align="right"|1797||
|-
|Mon||align="right"|1798||
|-
|bibliographies||align="right"|1802||
|-
|fezes||align="right"|1803||
|-
|dressmaking||align="right"|1803||
|-
|condoned||align="right"|1805||
|-
|coarsening||align="right"|1805||
|-
|gumbos||align="right"|1805||
|-
|peewee||align="right"|1806||
|-
|lassos||align="right"|1807||
|-
|Pueblos||align="right"|1808||
|-
|blinder||align="right"|1809||
|-
|eddied||align="right"|1810||
|-
|scurrying||align="right"|1810||
|-
|milliliter||align="right"|1810||
|-
|miffed||align="right"|1811||
|-
|quintet||align="right"|1811||
|-
|aluminum||align="right"|1812||
|-
|shawling||align="right"|1812||
|-
|tossup||align="right"|1812||
|-
|opalescent||align="right"|1813||
|-
|vocalic||align="right"|1814||
|-
|Swahili||align="right"|1814||
|-
|nocturnes||align="right"|1814||
|-
|underpaying||align="right"|1817||
|-
|diarist||align="right"|1818||
|-
|intellectualizes||align="right"|1819||
|-
|stethoscope||align="right"|1820||
|-
|bloodstain||align="right"|1820||
|-
|squawk||align="right"|1821||
|-
|suffragist||align="right"|1822||
|-
|caffeine||align="right"|1823||
|-
|flysheet||align="right"|1825||
|-
|augmented||align="right"|1825||
|-
|subway||align="right"|1825||
|-
|crotchety||align="right"|1825||
|-
|pullout||align="right"|1825||
|-
|beadier||align="right"|1826||
|-
|mammal||align="right"|1826||
|-
|chaffed||align="right"|1827||
|-
|clinics||align="right"|1827||
|-
|recruitment||align="right"|1828||
|-
|mas||align="right"|1829||
|-
|mesmerizing||align="right"|1829||
|-
|constitutionals||align="right"|1829||
|-
|cahoots||align="right"|1829||
|-
|homeopathic||align="right"|1830||
|-
|pterodactyl||align="right"|1830||
|-
|cadres||align="right"|1830||
|-
|hex||align="right"|1830||
|-
|chipmunks||align="right"|1832||
|-
|Horus||align="right"|1832||
|-
|toothpastes||align="right"|1832||
|-
|cottonmouths||align="right"|1832||
|-
|underplays||align="right"|1833||
|-
|dorsals||align="right"|1834||
|-
|cetaceans||align="right"|1835||
|-
|wholeheartedly||align="right"|1836||
|-
|creepily||align="right"|1836||
|-
|étude||align="right"|1837||
|-
|Confucianism||align="right"|1837||
|-
|scatting||align="right"|1838||
|-
|smokestacks||align="right"|1838||
|-
|pretzel||align="right"|1838||
|-
|upheaval||align="right"|1838||
|-
|Bunker||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mushier||align="right"|1839||
|-
|bushings||align="right"|1839||
|-
|OK||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mesa||align="right"|1840||
|-
|wastrel||align="right"|1841||
|-
|pyromaniac||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Assam||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Spitz||align="right"|1842||
|-
|wisteria||align="right"|1842||
|-
|cubbyhole||align="right"|1842||
|-
|kinkiest||align="right"|1844||
|-
|Limoges||align="right"|1844||
|-
|taillights||align="right"|1844||
|-
|subgroups||align="right"|1845||
|-
|garnisheeing||align="right"|1846||
|-
|Joe||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tobogganed||align="right"|1846||
|-
|snobby||align="right"|1846||
|-
|strapless||align="right"|1846||
|-
|cheekily||align="right"|1846||
|-
|orgiastic||align="right"|1846||
|-
|funnest||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tactlessness||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tailcoats||align="right"|1847||
|-
|gynecologists||align="right"|1847||
|-
|cartography||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tenderfeet||align="right"|1849||
|-
|laterals||align="right"|1851||
|-
|educations||align="right"|1851||
|-
|trunks||align="right"|1851||
|-
|hangars||align="right"|1852||
|-
|colloids||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimits||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimited||align="right"|1852||
|-
|davenport||align="right"|1853||
|-
|Russians||align="right"|1854||
|-
|abnormality||align="right"|1854||
|-
|rainfall||align="right"|1854||
|-
|Brewer||align="right"|1855||
|-
|hazings||align="right"|1855||
|-
|vendetta||align="right"|1855||
|-
|pullouts||align="right"|1855||
|-
|warlords||align="right"|1856||
|-
|seismographs||align="right"|1858||
|-
|interbreeding||align="right"|1859||
|-
|emulsification||align="right"|1859||
|-
|pub||align="right"|1859||
|-
|soulfulness||align="right"|1860||
|-
|Darwinian||align="right"|1860||
|-
|flautist||align="right"|1860||
|-
|pipelines||align="right"|1860||
|-
|ewe||align="right"|1861||
|-
|bellboy||align="right"|1861||
|-
|trapezes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|ewes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|railroading||align="right"|1862||
|-
|isomorphic||align="right"|1862||
|-
|canapé||align="right"|1863||
|-
|columns||align="right"|1863||
|-
|octets||align="right"|1864||
|-
|coffeecakes||align="right"|1865||
|-
|goulash||align="right"|1866||
|-
|sudsier||align="right"|1866||
|-
|maverick||align="right"|1867||
|-
|safaris||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rangier||align="right"|1868||
|-
|mailbox||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rotting||align="right"|1870||
|-
|saprophyte||align="right"|1870||
|-
|agenda||align="right"|1871||
|-
|roomers||align="right"|1871||
|-
|masterminds||align="right"|1872||
|-
|deforest||align="right"|1874||
|-
|spaghetti||align="right"|1874||
|-
|intercollegiate||align="right"|1874||
|-
|Helicon||align="right"|1875||
|-
|dermatitis||align="right"|1876||
|-
|semiprivate||align="right"|1876||
|-
|toniest||align="right"|1877||
|-
|supplies||align="right"|1878||
|-
|quirking||align="right"|1878||
|-
|wagged||align="right"|1879||
|-
|onionskin||align="right"|1879||
|-
|bacillus||align="right"|1879||
|-
|clobber||align="right"|1879||
|-
|steamrollered||align="right"|1879||
|-
|alumna||align="right"|1879||
|-
|locoweed||align="right"|1879||
|-
|toeholds||align="right"|1880||
|-
|paternalism||align="right"|1881||
|-
|adrenals||align="right"|1882||
|-
|syndicating||align="right"|1882||
|-
|winery||align="right"|1882||
|-
|interface||align="right"|1882||
|-
|infantryman||align="right"|1883||
|-
|worldlier||align="right"|1883||
|-
|shyest||align="right"|1884||
|-
|showdowns||align="right"|1884||
|-
|oilfield||align="right"|1884||
|-
|words||align="right"|1884||
|-
|fixating||align="right"|1885||
|-
|micron||align="right"|1885||
|-
|stagehand||align="right"|1885||
|-
|contraceptives||align="right"|1886||
|-
|sensitization||align="right"|1887||
|-
|parachutists||align="right"|1888||
|-
|sandblaster||align="right"|1888||
|-
|erogenous||align="right"|1889||
|-
|lactating||align="right"|1889||
|-
|psychopathics||align="right"|1890||
|-
|reactor||align="right"|1890||
|-
|unsnaps||align="right"|1892||
|-
|decolletes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|inbound||align="right"|1894||
|-
|marihuana||align="right"|1894||
|-
|encapsulated||align="right"|1894||
|-
|erythrocytes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|sequinned||align="right"|1894||
|-
|defrosted||align="right"|1895||
|-
|sacks||align="right"|1895||
|-
|phonemes||align="right"|1896||
|-
|mescaline||align="right"|1896||
|-
|ions||align="right"|1896||
|-
|midyear||align="right"|1896||
|-
|redwoods||align="right"|1897||
|-
|happenstances||align="right"|1897||
|-
|sandhog||align="right"|1897||
|-
|eggs||align="right"|1898||
|-
|taxicab||align="right"|1899||
|-
|concoction||align="right"|1675||
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
{|class="wikitable"
!
!16s
!17s
!18s
!Σ
|-
!conservative words
|15||9||17||41
|-
!all words
|176||114||210||500
|-
!percentage of conservative words
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.

::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "''best''" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

== Destruction of words ==

Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==

For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of
the conservative words:

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!claimed
|20||40||80||160||13
|-
!recount
|20||40||81||150||14
|}

An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!pre Segway
|14||28||56||112||6
|-
!post Segway
|15||28||56||124||6
|-
!my count
|15||29||57||114||6
|}

How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.

But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !

After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...

So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== Too Good to be True ==

Imagine the hypothesis: There are as many male writers as there are female
ones.

To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,
the hypothesis is true.

But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we
reach round 300?

Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being
finished, but we can't conclude anything!

Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.

Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1

So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.

And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.

When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!

Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.

Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating
''best conservative new words''.

At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be bigger than for each other combination,
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields odds of
1:2,000,000.

Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not
believable, and don't support your claims made in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Disbelief of something because it is "too good to be true" is not a strong argument against it. Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example. Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.

: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil. Of course it is not a random process. That would be silly. But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn. We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells. Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== A summary with graphs... ==

On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: <blockquote>'''Conservapedia's Law''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. 
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. </blockquote> This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''
<blockquote>''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''</blockquote>

{|
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]
|-
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of ≈ 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]
|-
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]
|-
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]
|}
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.

I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!

{|
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]
|-
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does not show a geometric progression.
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]
|-
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century ≈ 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]
|-
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 conservative words, and a general distribution of the creation of words.
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|However, if one maps the percentage of words in - e.g. - a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]
|}

Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:<blockquote>That's a
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I
would have identified as liberal in nature. But very few of these words
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) </blockquote>

I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)
pattern.

Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. But quantity is no substitute or quality. You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil. Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil. Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about. Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend?
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the ''best conservative words''.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decrypt ==

Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the "Bombe"). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.
:: As for "the British are notoriously weak in math": you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so. If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!

::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, "a non-Newtonian fluid". He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-08-06T01:45:27Z

JacobB: Undo revision 801557 by JohnQP (Talk)

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''
----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a "1-2-4-8" geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Definition by example seems best here. Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list. You wouldn't request a definition for "List of Words beginning with G", so why are you demanding a definition for "Conservative term"? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you? We're not using them in any aberrant way. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. "List of Words beginning with G" is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what "conservative" means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the "excellent scholarship presented in this essay" smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a "conservative word" was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

"AmandaBunting" (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk. We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology. It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you. Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
-

== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

: "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

== Research method ==

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Suggestion? ==

What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==

===Selection bias===
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: 

<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Probability</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>1/15</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>2/15</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>4/15</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>8/15</td></tr></table>

For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

: Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===An unbiased test===
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. 

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>

: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.

:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===Table of random words===
{|class="collapsible collapsed"
!500 words
|-
|1 economics
2 storeroom
3 hunkers
4 sufficing
5 coffeehouses
6 stalagmites
7 therapy
8 sanitation
9 cheapskates
10 Caesareans
11 ringmaster
12 acclimate
13 penology
14 verandah
15 caregivers
16 fed
17 disengaged
18 whitecaps
19 dissertation
20 consignment
21 chainsaws
22 speeds
23 kinfolk
24 caribous
25 hobbyists
26 coefficients
27 protuberance
28 morphemes
29 Caroline
30 millionaires
31 recyclable
32 wilts
33 unreconstructed
34 chandeliers
35 palomino
36 joysticks
37 volleys
38 cajoling
39 bucksaws
40 spars
41 portaged
42 acoustically
43 humanize
44 hybridize
45 tipsters
46 overprices
47 marksmanship
48 fezes
49 depressant
50 auctioned
51 flamethrower
52 biking
53 artistic
54 agribusiness
55 jottings
56 pedicures
57 Cordilleras
58 slots
59 recording
60 unrealistic
61 rationalism
62 peacekeeping
63 aromatherapy
64 jackknife
65 champagne
66 horrendous
67 Quasimodo
68 excavator
69 chowders
70 arts
71 configure
72 civic
73 telegraphy
74 sweepstakes
75 euphoric
76 strategy
77 subgroup
78 shouting
79 gusher
80 telemarketing
81 glucose
82 booties
83 preponderated
84 manures
85 outspokenness
86 wiener
87 embeds
88 amped
89 sternums
90 empathy
91 cognomina
92 colitis
93 kimono
94 retched
95 singletons
96 megaphoned
97 respelled
98 Hindus
99 squiggle
100 irrigates
101 reconstructions
102 deceptiveness
103 colonialism
104 missioned
105 dyes
106 maladroit
107 tents
108 turfs
109 generalization
110 seamanship
111 duffers
112 scruffier
113 pollinate
114 bobcats
115 achieved
116 exerted
117 flapjack
118 Independence
119 lucidity
120 indenturing
121 enumerable
122 disenchanted
123 flashback
124 trilogies
125 colloquially
126 Colby
127 killjoys
128 lifelines
129 hydrotherapy
130 psychoanalysis
131 memorializing
132 bronchitis
133 rink
134 automobiles
135 dandy
136 schoolmarms
137 debriefing
138 glands
139 oceanography
140 jetted
141 hurdler
142 dependability
143 tactician
144 rotor
145 liturgies
146 quantified
147 wests
148 quitters
149 ocarinas
150 betting
151 apathetically
152 smoggier
153 Xenia
154 saris
155 dupe
156 voodooism
157 optimize
158 particularization
159 funereally
160 masterminding
161 capsizes
162 orchestrates
163 uncivilized
164 emphasized
165 skyrocket
166 plagiarist
167 politicoes
168 streptococci
169 pantsuits
170 waving
171 decontaminates
172 teensy
173 taxonomy
174 proselytizes
175 drollness
176 expectoration
177 legmen
178 modulations
179 diploma
180 Brandy
181 radar
182 pushiest
183 drill
184 lush
185 temperas
186 musicals
187 wheal
188 horticulture
189 cancan
190 jocularity
191 caramels
192 bipolar
193 sophisticated
194 injudicious
195 emulsion
196 ignore
197 cannonballed
198 swastika
199 overachievers
200 rubella
201 chuckhole
202 ersatz
203 breeziness
204 climaxes
205 explosiveness
206 empathizing
207 jumps
208 secularizing
209 sequoia
210 bibliography
211 prettying
212 bouldered
213 authorship
214 vocalizing
215 tarpons
216 camisoles
217 cowpox
218 tans
219 breathable
220 machines
221 tycoon
222 flicking
223 squishes
224 semiprofessional
225 feline
226 seedling
227 hankie
228 entitlement
229 abscissa
230 derisive
231 romance
232 overprice
233 beads
234 stipple
235 Kitty
236 jewelled
237 mascaraed
238 dissociation
239 moments
240 Spica
241 quaking
242 legislation
243 wobbly
244 scorches
245 books
246 gastrointestinal
247 finked
248 renegotiates
249 flautists
250 wrongheadedness
251 allergenic
252 squishiest
253 kickoffs
254 mecca
255 disses
256 woodwinds
257 discotheques
258 replacements
259 tomahawks
260 voluptuaries
261 salon
262 eliciting
263 resale
264 soporific
265 dosage
266 smokestacks
267 rationalists
268 subsumed
269 futzes
270 minutemen
271 stingrays
272 marathoner
273 vagina
274 propellers
275 rooftops
276 sensationalist
277 bluejackets
278 individualize
279 hyphenating
280 Xanthippe
281 federated
282 amortize
283 airfare
284 hyphenates
285 syncopates
286 sermonizing
287 biochemistry
288 babysat
289 yellows
290 riskier
291 cassocks
292 stated
293 Cordoba
294 Slinky
295 eventfully
296 nines
297 blabbermouths
298 fraternizes
299 bucked
300 Boolean
301 bivalve
302 ricochetted
303 toys
304 toted
305 commissars
306 cushioning
307 redeploy
308 poignancy
309 variegating
310 snuffbox
311 stoplight
312 biochemists
313 bicycling
314 disenfranchised
315 nosing
316 enlightenment
317 knockout
318 resurgent
319 pediments
320 skyscrapers
321 treatments
322 polio
323 flashbulbs
324 empower
325 rounding
326 pervasive
327 humped
328 oxymora
329 freebie
330 passageway
331 barfing
332 motorists
333 triglycerides
334 Mayans
335 stopped
336 kidnapper
337 pensioning
338 foreclosures
339 Yankees
340 manifestoing
341 predictor
342 Delawares
343 librettos
344 panoply
345 angstroms
346 jodhpurs
347 backpedal
348 sugars
349 preclude
350 unravelling
351 Lilliput
352 motivator
353 enslavement
354 pencilling
355 flukey
356 amoral
357 depository
358 unemotional
359 stumpy
360 cartons
361 gal
362 ignitions
363 malingered
364 spotlighted
365 photographic
366 abnegated
367 dashing
368 atrocious
369 inanities
370 derricks
371 mountaineer
372 inseminate
373 sacrosanct
374 modernize
375 specializations
376 obliging
377 heckles
378 baccalaureates
379 bluebirds
380 lengthiest
381 octets
382 physiotherapist
383 disorganizing
384 toffees
385 unfurling
386 abnegate
387 bathrobe
388 socked
389 crepe
390 polkas
391 overwriting
392 punned
393 platoons
394 infrared
395 ensuring
396 decimate
397 baggiest
398 plungers
399 trampolining
400 centigram
401 Topsy
402 epochal
403 boogies
404 showrooms
405 pianofortes
406 Orphic
407 logbooks
408 amphibious
409 rapprochements
410 terms
411 Kalmyk
412 petering
413 geocentric
414 stills
415 ethnologist
416 exec
417 flairs
418 likableness
419 rods
420 melange
421 graduated
422 ante
423 voluminously
424 impaled
425 cognacs
426 yups
427 comfiest
428 strychnine
429 subsoiled
430 conics
431 Salish
432 windsocks
433 rutabaga
434 vacuumed
435 maestri
436 podiatrist
437 restructured
438 metrically
439 motorcade
440 zipping
441 unmoral
442 electioneered
443 minibikes
444 trillion
445 sudsier
446 actuator
447 acing
448 masochism
449 softeners
450 cocksucker
451 brig
452 verbs
453 buccaneer
454 confessed
455 filibustered
456 rearmed
457 melodramatics
458 swivelled
459 veggies
460 monochrome
461 hellos
462 escalators
463 Seyfert
464 bushwhack
465 encapsulation
466 combining
467 realists
468 playgrounds
469 teenage
470 glandular
471 tot
472 cyclical
473 tinsmith
474 commitment
475 undersells
476 orthopaedics
477 yardstick
478 Vivian
479 peppy
480 swatted
481 earlobes
482 snapshots
483 nitpicker
484 unities
485 depressants
486 briefing
487 halo
488 watermarking
489 electronics
490 inadequates
491 ghosted
492 rapscallions
493 snorkeler
494 percentages
495 relapsing
496 facet
497 inconsistently
498 takeout
499 acidify
500 password
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''
{|class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
!word
!date
!class
|-
|monsignor||align="right"|1607||C
|-
|productive||align="right"|1612||C
|-
|alertly||align="right"|1618||C
|-
|inconsistent||align="right"|1620||C
|-
|numerical||align="right"|1628||C
|-
|interlock||align="right"|1632||C
|-
|platoons||align="right"|1637||C
|-
|forevermore||align="right"|1641||C
|-
|identification||align="right"|1644||C
|-
|untenable||align="right"|1647||C
|-
|reversible||align="right"|1648||C
|-
|authentication||align="right"|1652||C
|-
|monotheistic||align="right"|1660||C
|-
|constructive||align="right"|1680||C
|-
|alphabetize||align="right"|1691||C
|-
|misconduct||align="right"|1705||C
|-
|propagandists||align="right"|1718||C
|-
|revelations||align="right"|1729||C
|-
|guaranteed||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|cohesiveness||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|systematizing||align="right"|1767||C
|-
|letdown||align="right"|1768||C
|-
|dissident||align="right"|1769||C
|-
|diagramming||align="right"|1785||C
|-
|backhanded||align="right"|1800||C
|-
|autocratically||align="right"|1823||C
|-
|socialistic||align="right"|1827||C
|-
|Mormonisms||align="right"|1830||C
|-
|westernize||align="right"|1837||C
|-
|trademarks||align="right"|1838||C
|-
|propagandized||align="right"|1844||C
|-
|graffito||align="right"|1851||C
|-
|Americans||align="right"|1855||C
|-
|optimize||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|outdistancing||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|rogues||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|birthrates||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|slob||align="right"|1861||C
|-
|quantifier||align="right"|1876||C
|-
|implode||align="right"|1881||C
|-
|housemother||align="right"|1882||C
|-
|scantier||align="right"|1600||
|-
|sierras||align="right"|1600||
|-
|arena||align="right"|1600||
|-
|toddled||align="right"|1600||
|-
|eventful||align="right"|1600||
|-
|catheter||align="right"|1601||
|-
|primarily||align="right"|1601||
|-
|labeling||align="right"|1601||
|-
|copings||align="right"|1601||
|-
|Pooh||align="right"|1602||
|-
|respectively||align="right"|1602||
|-
|embroiling||align="right"|1603||
|-
|haloes||align="right"|1603||
|-
|Iliad||align="right"|1603||
|-
|enthusiasm||align="right"|1603||
|-
|dragoons||align="right"|1604||
|-
|promised||align="right"|1604||
|-
|recollecting||align="right"|1604||
|-
|stentorian||align="right"|1605||
|-
|rivaling||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impregnates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|touchy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impassive||align="right"|1605||
|-
|immediacy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|literary||align="right"|1605||
|-
|animosities||align="right"|1605||
|-
|volatile||align="right"|1605||
|-
|vegetates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|acclaiming||align="right"|1606||
|-
|onlooker||align="right"|1606||
|-
|sides||align="right"|1606||
|-
|wisher||align="right"|1607||
|-
|melancholia||align="right"|1607||
|-
|tab||align="right"|1607||
|-
|typical||align="right"|1609||
|-
|casuist||align="right"|1609||
|-
|bucolic||align="right"|1609||
|-
|footfalls||align="right"|1610||
|-
|bison||align="right"|1611||
|-
|lambing||align="right"|1611||
|-
|ticketed||align="right"|1611||
|-
|incompatibilities||align="right"|1611||
|-
|demonstrators||align="right"|1611||
|-
|reproduces||align="right"|1611||
|-
|longish||align="right"|1611||
|-
|amalgamations||align="right"|1612||
|-
|bailing||align="right"|1613||
|-
|caste||align="right"|1613||
|-
|convulses||align="right"|1614||
|-
|abscess||align="right"|1615||
|-
|valise||align="right"|1615||
|-
|cult||align="right"|1617||
|-
|hesitancy||align="right"|1617||
|-
|drill||align="right"|1619||
|-
|blotchy||align="right"|1619||
|-
|urban||align="right"|1619||
|-
|appositeness||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingratiated||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingrate||align="right"|1622||
|-
|diplomata||align="right"|1622||
|-
|exporters||align="right"|1623||
|-
|drolly||align="right"|1623||
|-
|adrift||align="right"|1624||
|-
|powwow||align="right"|1624||
|-
|oaf||align="right"|1625||
|-
|preconceptions||align="right"|1625||
|-
|ruse||align="right"|1625||
|-
|abominating||align="right"|1628||
|-
|dodo||align="right"|1628||
|-
|discriminated||align="right"|1628||
|-
|biassing||align="right"|1628||
|-
|enslaved||align="right"|1628||
|-
|backwaters||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromic||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromes||align="right"|1629||
|-
|tussles||align="right"|1629||
|-
|correspondents||align="right"|1630||
|-
|underrates||align="right"|1632||
|-
|underrate||align="right"|1632||
|-
|characterized||align="right"|1633||
|-
|etcher||align="right"|1634||
|-
|labium||align="right"|1634||
|-
|fluctuates||align="right"|1634||
|-
|morocco||align="right"|1634||
|-
|circumnavigated||align="right"|1634||
|-
|Anglican||align="right"|1635||
|-
|graphically||align="right"|1637||
|-
|millenniums||align="right"|1638||
|-
|domesticating||align="right"|1639||
|-
|pharmaceutical||align="right"|1640||
|-
|onus||align="right"|1640||
|-
|feints||align="right"|1644||
|-
|scavenge||align="right"|1644||
|-
|malls||align="right"|1644||
|-
|salaciously||align="right"|1645||
|-
|additional||align="right"|1646||
|-
|nonuser||align="right"|1646||
|-
|predisposing||align="right"|1646||
|-
|temperamentally||align="right"|1646||
|-
|invigorate||align="right"|1646||
|-
|protuberances||align="right"|1646||
|-
|disinclines||align="right"|1647||
|-
|castanet||align="right"|1647||
|-
|piloting||align="right"|1649||
|-
|leniently||align="right"|1652||
|-
|melange||align="right"|1653||
|-
|dialling||align="right"|1653||
|-
|naively||align="right"|1654||
|-
|siesta||align="right"|1655||
|-
|collectives||align="right"|1655||
|-
|quibbles||align="right"|1656||
|-
|dawdler||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmologies||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmology||align="right"|1656||
|-
|morbid||align="right"|1656||
|-
|inconvenienced||align="right"|1656||
|-
|numerating||align="right"|1657||
|-
|incapacitate||align="right"|1657||
|-
|overwrite||align="right"|1658||
|-
|horrendous||align="right"|1659||
|-
|tableau||align="right"|1660||
|-
|derisively||align="right"|1662||
|-
|disk||align="right"|1664||
|-
|diverging||align="right"|1665||
|-
|rotundity||align="right"|1665||
|-
|cultivators||align="right"|1665||
|-
|maroon||align="right"|1666||
|-
|stunning||align="right"|1667||
|-
|interleave||align="right"|1668||
|-
|globes||align="right"|1668||
|-
|hick||align="right"|1669||
|-
|realty||align="right"|1670||
|-
|belated||align="right"|1670||
|-
|punning||align="right"|1670||
|-
|haphazardly||align="right"|1671||
|-
|wader||align="right"|1673||
|-
|resilient||align="right"|1674||
|-
|auk||align="right"|1674||
|-
|priggish||align="right"|1676||
|-
|bungalow||align="right"|1676||
|-
|masqueraded||align="right"|1677||
|-
|configuring||align="right"|1677||
|-
|masterstroke||align="right"|1679||
|-
|yaws||align="right"|1679||
|-
|ganglions||align="right"|1681||
|-
|kidnaps||align="right"|1682||
|-
|shivery||align="right"|1683||
|-
|whaler||align="right"|1684||
|-
|bewilder||align="right"|1684||
|-
|roughshod||align="right"|1688||
|-
|bluebird||align="right"|1688||
|-
|toothbrushes||align="right"|1690||
|-
|romance||align="right"|1690||
|-
|adeptness||align="right"|1691||
|-
|dowsing||align="right"|1691||
|-
|processioned||align="right"|1691||
|-
|missioned||align="right"|1692||
|-
|vessels||align="right"|1694||
|-
|flabbiness||align="right"|1694||
|-
|penmanship||align="right"|1695||
|-
|Ojibwa||align="right"|1700||
|-
|actualized||align="right"|1701||
|-
|established||align="right"|1702||
|-
|copped||align="right"|1704||
|-
|liability||align="right"|1705||
|-
|sniggers||align="right"|1706||
|-
|dyspeptic||align="right"|1706||
|-
|crunch||align="right"|1706||
|-
|hibiscuses||align="right"|1706||
|-
|stencil||align="right"|1707||
|-
|quadruplet||align="right"|1709||
|-
|primness||align="right"|1709||
|-
|stocks||align="right"|1709||
|-
|leaseholds||align="right"|1710||
|-
|rheumatic||align="right"|1711||
|-
|papilla||align="right"|1713||
|-
|presentiments||align="right"|1714||
|-
|tantrum||align="right"|1714||
|-
|needling||align="right"|1715||
|-
|impersonating||align="right"|1715||
|-
|settees||align="right"|1716||
|-
|hustling||align="right"|1720||
|-
|unassuming||align="right"|1722||
|-
|Houyhnhnm||align="right"|1726||
|-
|knotholes||align="right"|1726||
|-
|Lilliput||align="right"|1726||
|-
|soporifics||align="right"|1727||
|-
|Shinto||align="right"|1727||
|-
|bludgeons||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pillboxes||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pantheistic||align="right"|1732||
|-
|vampires||align="right"|1732||
|-
|palaver||align="right"|1735||
|-
|Stilton||align="right"|1736||
|-
|incriminates||align="right"|1736||
|-
|philanders||align="right"|1737||
|-
|exiled||align="right"|1737||
|-
|coterie||align="right"|1738||
|-
|cantaloupe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|wham||align="right"|1739||
|-
|swipe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|icings||align="right"|1740||
|-
|segueing||align="right"|1740||
|-
|insulates||align="right"|1741||
|-
|flatiron||align="right"|1743||
|-
|uncharacteristic||align="right"|1748||
|-
|cornmeal||align="right"|1749||
|-
|develop||align="right"|1750||
|-
|spindling||align="right"|1750||
|-
|measurements||align="right"|1751||
|-
|pompon||align="right"|1751||
|-
|fanciers||align="right"|1751||
|-
|lumberyard||align="right"|1753||
|-
|riffles||align="right"|1754||
|-
|personification||align="right"|1755||
|-
|mesquites||align="right"|1759||
|-
|maniacs||align="right"|1763||
|-
|pronouncing||align="right"|1764||
|-
|frivolity||align="right"|1764||
|-
|aboriginals||align="right"|1767||
|-
|Afghans||align="right"|1767||
|-
|paws||align="right"|1769||
|-
|mynas||align="right"|1769||
|-
|modernization||align="right"|1770||
|-
|coagulants||align="right"|1770||
|-
|hairpin||align="right"|1771||
|-
|fagged||align="right"|1772||
|-
|Ta||align="right"|1772||
|-
|propertied||align="right"|1772||
|-
|fagging||align="right"|1772||
|-
|pups||align="right"|1773||
|-
|gibbon||align="right"|1774||
|-
|gecko||align="right"|1774||
|-
|passé||align="right"|1775||
|-
|clannish||align="right"|1776||
|-
|gnu||align="right"|1777||
|-
|gasses||align="right"|1779||
|-
|balalaika||align="right"|1780||
|-
|congressman||align="right"|1780||
|-
|fumigate||align="right"|1781||
|-
|varying||align="right"|1781||
|-
|minutiae||align="right"|1782||
|-
|effervesce||align="right"|1784||
|-
|bangle||align="right"|1787||
|-
|letups||align="right"|1787||
|-
|thyroids||align="right"|1787||
|-
|loots||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Hollands||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Dolly||align="right"|1790||
|-
|weakfish||align="right"|1791||
|-
|rutabagas||align="right"|1791||
|-
|equalizer||align="right"|1792||
|-
|steeplechase||align="right"|1793||
|-
|daredevils||align="right"|1794||
|-
|commentated||align="right"|1794||
|-
|embeds||align="right"|1794||
|-
|telegraphy||align="right"|1795||
|-
|soled||align="right"|1795||
|-
|allover||align="right"|1796||
|-
|titanium||align="right"|1796||
|-
|quizzically||align="right"|1797||
|-
|stashes||align="right"|1797||
|-
|kilogram||align="right"|1797||
|-
|belittled||align="right"|1797||
|-
|Mon||align="right"|1798||
|-
|bibliographies||align="right"|1802||
|-
|fezes||align="right"|1803||
|-
|dressmaking||align="right"|1803||
|-
|condoned||align="right"|1805||
|-
|coarsening||align="right"|1805||
|-
|gumbos||align="right"|1805||
|-
|peewee||align="right"|1806||
|-
|lassos||align="right"|1807||
|-
|Pueblos||align="right"|1808||
|-
|blinder||align="right"|1809||
|-
|eddied||align="right"|1810||
|-
|scurrying||align="right"|1810||
|-
|milliliter||align="right"|1810||
|-
|miffed||align="right"|1811||
|-
|quintet||align="right"|1811||
|-
|aluminum||align="right"|1812||
|-
|shawling||align="right"|1812||
|-
|tossup||align="right"|1812||
|-
|opalescent||align="right"|1813||
|-
|vocalic||align="right"|1814||
|-
|Swahili||align="right"|1814||
|-
|nocturnes||align="right"|1814||
|-
|underpaying||align="right"|1817||
|-
|diarist||align="right"|1818||
|-
|intellectualizes||align="right"|1819||
|-
|stethoscope||align="right"|1820||
|-
|bloodstain||align="right"|1820||
|-
|squawk||align="right"|1821||
|-
|suffragist||align="right"|1822||
|-
|caffeine||align="right"|1823||
|-
|flysheet||align="right"|1825||
|-
|augmented||align="right"|1825||
|-
|subway||align="right"|1825||
|-
|crotchety||align="right"|1825||
|-
|pullout||align="right"|1825||
|-
|beadier||align="right"|1826||
|-
|mammal||align="right"|1826||
|-
|chaffed||align="right"|1827||
|-
|clinics||align="right"|1827||
|-
|recruitment||align="right"|1828||
|-
|mas||align="right"|1829||
|-
|mesmerizing||align="right"|1829||
|-
|constitutionals||align="right"|1829||
|-
|cahoots||align="right"|1829||
|-
|homeopathic||align="right"|1830||
|-
|pterodactyl||align="right"|1830||
|-
|cadres||align="right"|1830||
|-
|hex||align="right"|1830||
|-
|chipmunks||align="right"|1832||
|-
|Horus||align="right"|1832||
|-
|toothpastes||align="right"|1832||
|-
|cottonmouths||align="right"|1832||
|-
|underplays||align="right"|1833||
|-
|dorsals||align="right"|1834||
|-
|cetaceans||align="right"|1835||
|-
|wholeheartedly||align="right"|1836||
|-
|creepily||align="right"|1836||
|-
|étude||align="right"|1837||
|-
|Confucianism||align="right"|1837||
|-
|scatting||align="right"|1838||
|-
|smokestacks||align="right"|1838||
|-
|pretzel||align="right"|1838||
|-
|upheaval||align="right"|1838||
|-
|Bunker||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mushier||align="right"|1839||
|-
|bushings||align="right"|1839||
|-
|OK||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mesa||align="right"|1840||
|-
|wastrel||align="right"|1841||
|-
|pyromaniac||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Assam||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Spitz||align="right"|1842||
|-
|wisteria||align="right"|1842||
|-
|cubbyhole||align="right"|1842||
|-
|kinkiest||align="right"|1844||
|-
|Limoges||align="right"|1844||
|-
|taillights||align="right"|1844||
|-
|subgroups||align="right"|1845||
|-
|garnisheeing||align="right"|1846||
|-
|Joe||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tobogganed||align="right"|1846||
|-
|snobby||align="right"|1846||
|-
|strapless||align="right"|1846||
|-
|cheekily||align="right"|1846||
|-
|orgiastic||align="right"|1846||
|-
|funnest||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tactlessness||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tailcoats||align="right"|1847||
|-
|gynecologists||align="right"|1847||
|-
|cartography||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tenderfeet||align="right"|1849||
|-
|laterals||align="right"|1851||
|-
|educations||align="right"|1851||
|-
|trunks||align="right"|1851||
|-
|hangars||align="right"|1852||
|-
|colloids||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimits||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimited||align="right"|1852||
|-
|davenport||align="right"|1853||
|-
|Russians||align="right"|1854||
|-
|abnormality||align="right"|1854||
|-
|rainfall||align="right"|1854||
|-
|Brewer||align="right"|1855||
|-
|hazings||align="right"|1855||
|-
|vendetta||align="right"|1855||
|-
|pullouts||align="right"|1855||
|-
|warlords||align="right"|1856||
|-
|seismographs||align="right"|1858||
|-
|interbreeding||align="right"|1859||
|-
|emulsification||align="right"|1859||
|-
|pub||align="right"|1859||
|-
|soulfulness||align="right"|1860||
|-
|Darwinian||align="right"|1860||
|-
|flautist||align="right"|1860||
|-
|pipelines||align="right"|1860||
|-
|ewe||align="right"|1861||
|-
|bellboy||align="right"|1861||
|-
|trapezes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|ewes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|railroading||align="right"|1862||
|-
|isomorphic||align="right"|1862||
|-
|canapé||align="right"|1863||
|-
|columns||align="right"|1863||
|-
|octets||align="right"|1864||
|-
|coffeecakes||align="right"|1865||
|-
|goulash||align="right"|1866||
|-
|sudsier||align="right"|1866||
|-
|maverick||align="right"|1867||
|-
|safaris||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rangier||align="right"|1868||
|-
|mailbox||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rotting||align="right"|1870||
|-
|saprophyte||align="right"|1870||
|-
|agenda||align="right"|1871||
|-
|roomers||align="right"|1871||
|-
|masterminds||align="right"|1872||
|-
|deforest||align="right"|1874||
|-
|spaghetti||align="right"|1874||
|-
|intercollegiate||align="right"|1874||
|-
|Helicon||align="right"|1875||
|-
|dermatitis||align="right"|1876||
|-
|semiprivate||align="right"|1876||
|-
|toniest||align="right"|1877||
|-
|supplies||align="right"|1878||
|-
|quirking||align="right"|1878||
|-
|wagged||align="right"|1879||
|-
|onionskin||align="right"|1879||
|-
|bacillus||align="right"|1879||
|-
|clobber||align="right"|1879||
|-
|steamrollered||align="right"|1879||
|-
|alumna||align="right"|1879||
|-
|locoweed||align="right"|1879||
|-
|toeholds||align="right"|1880||
|-
|paternalism||align="right"|1881||
|-
|adrenals||align="right"|1882||
|-
|syndicating||align="right"|1882||
|-
|winery||align="right"|1882||
|-
|interface||align="right"|1882||
|-
|infantryman||align="right"|1883||
|-
|worldlier||align="right"|1883||
|-
|shyest||align="right"|1884||
|-
|showdowns||align="right"|1884||
|-
|oilfield||align="right"|1884||
|-
|words||align="right"|1884||
|-
|fixating||align="right"|1885||
|-
|micron||align="right"|1885||
|-
|stagehand||align="right"|1885||
|-
|contraceptives||align="right"|1886||
|-
|sensitization||align="right"|1887||
|-
|parachutists||align="right"|1888||
|-
|sandblaster||align="right"|1888||
|-
|erogenous||align="right"|1889||
|-
|lactating||align="right"|1889||
|-
|psychopathics||align="right"|1890||
|-
|reactor||align="right"|1890||
|-
|unsnaps||align="right"|1892||
|-
|decolletes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|inbound||align="right"|1894||
|-
|marihuana||align="right"|1894||
|-
|encapsulated||align="right"|1894||
|-
|erythrocytes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|sequinned||align="right"|1894||
|-
|defrosted||align="right"|1895||
|-
|sacks||align="right"|1895||
|-
|phonemes||align="right"|1896||
|-
|mescaline||align="right"|1896||
|-
|ions||align="right"|1896||
|-
|midyear||align="right"|1896||
|-
|redwoods||align="right"|1897||
|-
|happenstances||align="right"|1897||
|-
|sandhog||align="right"|1897||
|-
|eggs||align="right"|1898||
|-
|taxicab||align="right"|1899||
|-
|concoction||align="right"|1675||
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
{|class="wikitable"
!
!16s
!17s
!18s
!Σ
|-
!conservative words
|15||9||17||41
|-
!all words
|176||114||210||500
|-
!percentage of conservative words
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.

::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "''best''" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

== Destruction of words ==

Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==

For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of
the conservative words:

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!claimed
|20||40||80||160||13
|-
!recount
|20||40||81||150||14
|}

An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!pre Segway
|14||28||56||112||6
|-
!post Segway
|15||28||56||124||6
|-
!my count
|15||29||57||114||6
|}

How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.

But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !

After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...

So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== Too Good to be True ==

Imagine the hypothesis: There are as many male writers as there are female
ones.

To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,
the hypothesis is true.

But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we
reach round 300?

Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being
finished, but we can't conclude anything!

Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.

Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1

So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.

And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.

When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!

Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.

Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating
''best conservative new words''.

At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be bigger than for each other combination,
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields odds of
1:2,000,000.

Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not
believable, and don't support your claims made in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Disbelief of something because it is "too good to be true" is not a strong argument against it. Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example. Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.

: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil. Of course it is not a random process. That would be silly. But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn. We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells. Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== A summary with graphs... ==

On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: <blockquote>'''Conservapedia's Law''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. 
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. </blockquote> This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''
<blockquote>''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''</blockquote>

{|
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]
|-
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of ≈ 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]
|-
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]
|-
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]
|}
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.

I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!

{|
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]
|-
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does not show a geometric progression.
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]
|-
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century ≈ 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]
|-
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 conservative words, and a general distribution of the creation of words.
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|However, if one maps the percentage of words in - e.g. - a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]
|}

Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:<blockquote>That's a
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I
would have identified as liberal in nature. But very few of these words
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) </blockquote>

I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)
pattern.

Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. But quantity is no substitute or quality. You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil. Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil. Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about. Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend?
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the ''best conservative words''.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decrypt ==

Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the "Bombe"). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.
:: As for "the British are notoriously weak in math": you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so. If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!

::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

User:JacobB

2010-08-05T17:44:13Z

JacobB:

Conservative values

2010-08-04T23:28:45Z

JacobB: Undo revision 801028 by Tabletalkopeneyes (Talk)

'''Conservative values''' recognize the adversarial nature of politics, and much in life. As a result of their ability to deal with adversity, '''conservative values''' are superb in defending against obesity,<ref>See, e.g., [[conservative]] [[Mike Huckabee]] losing 110 pounds.[http://www.newsweek.com/id/51663]; relatively few [[conservatives]] are overweight.</ref> addiction,<ref>Conservative principles prohibit addictive drugs, pornography and gambling, and favor [[Rule of Law]] to prohibit underage drinking and smoking, when those addictions form. An example of a [[conservative]] who conquered alcoholism is President [[George W. Bush]]. [[Rush Limbaugh]] also conquered his addiction to [[OxyContin]].
A study shows that typically [[liberal]] college students live in an environment that "allows for a lifestyle that essentially extends the adolescent period," resulting in higher "drinking," "property theft," and "unstructured socializing with friends" compared with peers who do not go to college. [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/college-students-behaving-badly/ NY Times: "College Students Behaving Badly"]</ref> adversity,<ref>Conservative principles fully support [[self-defense]].</ref> anxiety,<ref>"Liberal teenagers always felt more stress than conservatives ....," according to one study summarized in ''The Economist''. [http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10717915]</ref> fear,<ref>An example of a [[conservative]] who overcame a difficult is fear is President [[Ronald Reagan]], who conquered a longtime fear of flying.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEED7123CF93AA1575AC0A967958260]</ref> depression, narcissism,<ref>See, e.g., [[Hollywood values]]</ref> risky law-breaking activities like dangerous driving,<ref>[[Conservatives]] accept and teach respect for [[Rule of Law]], and this deters dangerous driving, particularly by teenagers, that can tragically end in death.</ref> self-destructive behavior, illiteracy,<ref>[[Conservatives]] emphasize learning to read by [[phonics]], rather than the ineffective memorization approach of [[liberals]].</ref> rejection, wastefulness, and serious mental disorders.<ref>"While 58 percent of Republicans reported having excellent mental health, only 38 percent of Democrats described themselves that way."[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57683]</ref> [[Conservatives]] are happier than [[liberal]]s, and one study gives a [[reason]]: conservatives do not insist upon a [[mindless equality]].<ref>"Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor."[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354424,00.html]</ref>

'''Conservative values''' are also helpful in recognizing and combating [[deceit]]. A [[conservative]] understands the many incentives by others to engage in [[deceit]], and the political power that can result from such [[deceit]]. A [[conservative]] is often not surprised by the deception that fools others.

'''Conservative values''' include:

* placing ideas and principles above personal desire, weaknesses, fears and regrets
* a never-ending quest for the truth, despite obstacles based on emotion and personal experience, and spreading such truths for the benefit of all
* recognizing and utilizing the benefits of competition and hard work
* emphasizing [[charity]], with its unexpected benefits, rather than compulsory tax-and-spend programs
* teaching [[self-help]] rather than dependence on government and others
* a devotion to the principle of [[justice]]
* supporting [[self-defense]]
* recognizing the [[media]] for its [[liberal bias|bias]], [[media bullying|bullying]], deception.
* frugality and efficiency
* rejecting the deification of government officials
* giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality
* downplaying significance of wealth, disparities in wealth, and materialism in general<ref>''See, e.g.,'' the [[Coase Theorem]]</ref>
* emphasizing self-reliance and being able to keep the fruits of one's labor
* not complaining, and instead taking practical action to improve one's situation
* emphasizing self-restraint against hurtful activities
* emphasizing humility and open-mindedness instead of arrogant certainty about one's own views
* recognizing the power of the [[free market]]
* understanding that a rising tide lifts all boats, e.g. tax cuts benefit all.
* self-control as opposed to a self-indulgent search for instant gratification of desires.

'''Conservative values''' are useful and powerful in combating common human weaknesses:

*[[Lust]]
*[[Sloth (sin)|Laziness ]]
*[[Envy|Jealousy]]
*[[Gluttony]]
*[[Pride]]
*Conflict
*[[Corruption]]
* Credulity
* Liberalism

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservative Benefits]]
*[[William F. Buckley]]

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Virtues]]
{{Conservatism}}

Proposition 8

2010-08-04T21:50:55Z

JacobB:

[[Image:Yes on prop 8 prop 4 sign.jpg|right|thumb|A house in California showing support for Prop 8 and other conservative causes]]
'''Proposition 8''' was a ballot proposition in [[California]] that added the following text to Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution: ''Only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California.'' <ref>Voter Information Guide, ''Proposition 8'' [http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8]</ref> It sought to return [[traditional marriage]] to the state. The proposition passed with 52.3% of the vote on November 4, 2008.

The proposition only affected whether same-sex couples could call themselves married under California law, and did not affect any substantive rights. Same-sex couples can still file joint state tax returns, adopt children, and enjoy other marital benefits under the California domestic partnership law. They could not call themselves under federal law anyway, and the federal government does not recognize any same-sex marriages.

After the election, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Numerous [[lawsuits]] were filed with the California Supreme Court by same-sex couples and government entities, challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. The court heard oral arguments on March 5, 2009.

==History of Marriage in California==
Historically marriage in the state of California had always been between a man and a woman as that was the understood definition of marriage. There was no need to include language that specified gender. In 1977, amidst a changing climate that saw the advent of the gay rights movement, the California legislature amended the California Family Code to make it clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. <ref>UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, ''Same-Sex Marriage in California - Overview and Issues''[http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htGayMarriage.html]</ref>

In 2000 the possibility of same-sex marriage being legalized in other states led to Proposition 22 being passed, adding language to restrict California from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples from other states as valid. <ref>California Voter Guide, ''Limit on Marriages. Initiative Statute. Text of Proposition 22'' [http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm] Section 308.5 was added to the Family Code, to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."</ref> Proposition 22 passed easily with 61% of the vote, but it was overturned by California's Supreme Court in May of 2008. The court also mandated that [[gay marriage|same-sex marriage]] licenses be issued by judicial degree, not by the will of the voters or the legislature. The licenses were not recognized by the federal government and most of the nation.

==The Campaign for Proposition 8==
Proposition 8 was written in anticipation of four California Supreme Court Justices who overturned the will of the people and sought to redefine traditional marriage in California.

With a total of over 70 million dollars being spent, it became the most expensive campaign on a social proposition in history. The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hKiw9iO4JJqxjTDd98GqpwyqDEewD963PUK00|title=Donors pumped $83M to Calif. gay marriage campaign|publisher=The Associated Press|date=2009-02-02|accessdate=2009-02-03}}</ref>

The measure passed with 52% of the votes being for to 48% against. While much was made of the fact that it was losing in the polls up until the time of the election, proponents pointed out that similar measures were often reported as polling poorly, but the actual vote was different. For instance Proposition 22 was supposed to be too close to call in 2000. Although it had been claimed that minority voters were against the message, exit polling on election day showed that latinos favored it overall while blacks favored it with a 70% yes vote. The large number of blacks who came out to vote for [[Barack Obama]] helped to tip the scale for Proposition 8's passing. Obama ironically stated that he did not support same-sex marriage, though also against Proposition 8.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081106/news_1n6exit.html Blacks, Latinos helped Prop. 8, exit polls say]</ref>

===Proponents===
ProtectMarriage.com was the main proponent of the measure. It sponsored the initiative that placed the proposition on the ballot and spearheaded the campaign.
====Political Figures====
*Presidential-nominee and Senator [[John McCain]]
*Vice presidential-nominee and Governor [[Sarah Palin]]
*Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]]
*California State Senator [[Tom McClintock]]

====Religious Figures====
*[[Rick Warren]]
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Knights of Columbus]]
*[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
*[[Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America]]
*[[Eastern Orthodox Church]]
====Others====
*Grossmont Union High School District

===Opponents===
Equality For All, which ran NoOnProp8.com was the lead organization in opposition to Proposition 8.
====Political Figures====
*Then-presidential nominee and Senator [[Barack Obama]]
*Then-vice presidential nominee and Senator [[Joe Biden]]
*California Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
*House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]]
*Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]]
*Senator [[Barbara Boxer]]
*Mayor [[Gavin Newsom]]
*Mayor [[Antonio Villaraigosa]]
*California Attorney General [[Jerry Brown]]
====Religious Figures====
*[[Episcopal Church of America]]
*[[Jewish Mosaic]]
*[[American Jewish Committee]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
====Others====
*[[Google]]
*[[Apple Inc.]]
*[[Los Angeles Unified School District]]
*[[California Teachers Association]]
*Eight of the state's largest newspapers plus ''[[The New York Times]]''

==Results==
Proposition 8 passed with a 52.30% majority (7,001,084 votes) over a 47.70% minority (6,401,482 votes) with 340,611 invalid or blank votes. 79.42% of the Californian population turned up to vote on voting day.

Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com issued a statement saying, ""The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution." The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued a statement on November 6 saying "Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law."

==Vandalism and Protests==
Supporters of same-sex marriage vandalized some "Yes on 8" signs, sent hate mail, and ultimately made death threats which caused at least one top supporter of Proposition 8 to hire a bodyguard.<ref>ABC 30HD, Fresno, CA. "[http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6479879 Prop 8 Threat: Fresno Police close to Arrest]"</ref> Ultimately the realization that the people had spoken led to protests and arrests.<ref>FoxNews.com, ''Several Gay Marriage Ban Protesters Arrested in Clashes With Police in California'', Thursday, November 06, 2008 [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html]</ref> Continuing protests months after the election have led to more issues.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450884,00.html Cross-Bearing Woman Says She Was Attacked by Gay Marriage Supporters, May Press Charges] </ref> The Holy Redeemer Catholic Church was vandalized with the words Prop H8 and a Nazi swastika in spray paint. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41858 San Francisco Catholic Church Attacked by Pro-Homosexual Marriage Vandals] CNSNews, January 13, 2009</ref> The slang H8 stands for 'Hate' or Proposition Hate.

==Aftermath==
Due to the text that Proposition 8 added to the states constitution, same-sex marriage licenses are no longer being issued in California.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has argued that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed before Proposition 8 passed should still be considered valid in California.<ref>[http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37701prs20081105.html ACLU:''California Will Honor Marriages of Same-Sex Couples Married Before the Possible Passage of Prop. 8, Initiative Would Apply to Future Marriages'', 11/5/2008]</ref> Others have postulated the marriages may be converted to domestic partnerships <ref>[http://www.volokh.com/posts/1225907782.shtml The Volokh Conspiracy, ''What Will Happen to California Same-Sex Marriages?'', Eugene Volokh, 11/5/2008]</ref>, which in California have the same state-law rights as marriage.<ref>[http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/the_odd_legal_g.html Concurring Opinions,''A small wrinkle regarding the Volokh proposal on Prop 8 retro-activity'', by Kaimipono D. Wenger, 11/5/2008]</ref> Regardless of the court, any California couple can convert to a domestic partnership any time the couple wishes.

Following the passage, a group of gay couples and governmental entities (a small collection of coastal cities and counties) have filed suit against Proposition 8. The California Supreme court accepted the three lawsuits which sought to overturn Proposition 8 (Strauss v. Horton, Tyler v. California, San Francisco v. Horton). According to the AP, "All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change."<ref>AP, ''Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban'', Nov 19, 2008 [http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html]</ref> Similar laws upholding traditional marriage had already been passed in 30 other states.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on December 19th to no longer recognize the alleged marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that said that same-sex marriages were not to be recognized. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec19/0,4670,GayMarriageLawsuits,00.html Prop.8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages] AP, December 19, 2008</ref> "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions,".

Oral arguments were heard March 5, 2009, and the decision was rendered May 26, 2009. The California Supreme Court voted to uphold the proposition, but maintain state recognition of same-sex marriages already performed.<ref>http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF</ref>

A group of Hollywood actors led by musical theater composer Marc Shaiman wrote “Prop 8: The Musical.” The music video mocks Christians, defames Christ, and distorts the teaching of the Bible through a series of "pick and choose" doctrines. Marc Shaiman is also the composer for “Hairspray” and “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.” <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=40318 Group Calls for Hollywood to Apologize for ‘Prop 8: The Musical’] CNSNews, December 4, 2009</ref>

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:California]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
{{Liberalism}}

User:JacobB

2010-07-25T04:04:07Z

JacobB:

The Fab Five was made aware early on that this account wasn't what it seemed, yet nobody did a thing.

TK knew and relished his private knowledge, using me as a pawn in his grander scheme to undermine this project on a daily basis.

I tried to fit in. In fact I had a programme of doing everything I could to absolutely terrorize editors and be as big of an obstructionist dick as possible. It worked. Everyone but the admin here noticed.

And you credulous morons even promoted me again and again. Andy thought there was something promising about my maths contributions and ate my words on toast. There's not. For the most part they're far higher quality than any of the rubbish lessons Andy creates, but that says very little. In truth I am a maths graduate student, but not at the University of San Francisco as I told you. Other than that I'll leave it to you to go through all my maths contributions to find the errors and nonsense I introduced. Good luck.

In closing, I'm tired of the charade. I started feeling badly about the pain I caused unsuspected editors, having received far too many emails from distraught young people and parents. I can now see why the preferred method of shutting down discourse on Conservapedia is to simply permablock dissenting editors and cut off email. And knowing the pain you cause, do then ask yourselves why TK tries drawing all communications off the wiki? This man's only interest is causing suffering. You have already been presented with all the evidence you need.

I'm done. Didn't you learn your lesson with Bugler? Anyone who emulates you people is up to no good. I assure you.

Goodbye.

User:Balu

2010-07-22T17:12:25Z

JacobB: to de-red name

User talk:Balu

2010-07-22T17:12:11Z

JacobB: Created page with '{{welcome|sig=~~~~}} Thank you for reverting vandalism! ~~~~'

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 13:12, 22 July 2010 (EDT)}}

Thank you for reverting vandalism! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 13:12, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Moon

2010-07-22T05:29:57Z

JacobB: /* Perfect Artistic Symmetry */

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "[[Tidal locking]]" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The second paragraph from the top of the article has a confusion of phases of the Moon with eclipses. The phases of the moon are because of the shadow of the Moon, not the Earth. Or, in other words, parts of the visible Moon are dark because it's local night there. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 07:18, 2 November 2008 (EST)
: Fixed, thanks. It's not locked; you could have fixed it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:40, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:[http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html The Pope has no problem with evolution]. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.
:[[User:PeterBird|PeterBird]] 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

:::Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::: Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::: You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::This article quotes popes [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Order, I'm not going chase any more of your [[hearsay]]. This is [[Conservapedia]], and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote '''here'''. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.
:::::::Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope ''endorsing'' evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.
:::::::: Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) [[User:Order|Order]] 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... '''on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points'''" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::It further goes on to state: ''Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'' i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.
::''The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.''
::In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that '''you''' deem to be inconsistent with '''your''' understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need '''papal''' evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that ''Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith'' points the other way. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Folks, maybe [[Wikipedia]] is a better place for your misinformation. The [[Pope]], I assure you, accepts one [[Adam]] as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what [[Peter]] said as quoted above. The [[Old Earth]] is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of [[atheists]] who reject everything the [[Pope]] stands for anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That '''you''' think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:::::: Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to [[faith]]. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the [[Flood]] circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to '''your''' faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? [[User:Order|Order]] 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::: User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the [[Flood]] occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::Here is quote from [[Pope Benedict]]: ''This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.'' [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html]

::::::::Additional sources: [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm Truth Cannot Contradict Truth], [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp Message from the Pope, 1996], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html EVOLUTION AND THE POPE], [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html The Pope and Evolution], [http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html POPE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION]

::::::::Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps these speeches have been misinterpreted, or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the [[liberal]] media? Anyway, I hope these help.[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article [[Pangea]], its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the [[:Category:Geology]], there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the [[:Category:Astronomy]] also need rewritten. In the article [[Universe]], a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.
::::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::::: DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work. I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: I have updated the two specific articles that DaleHill mentioned, [[Pangea]] and [[Universe]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 2 December 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765 Miller et al] found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'' which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God '''and''' an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.
:To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:: That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, [[Christians]] almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:::There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a ''correlation'' of beliefs, but a ''basis'' of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about ''history'', not ''science'', and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

:Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)
::Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.
::The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the ''evidence'' for long ages is ambiguous at best.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.
:::You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.
:::: As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that ''subsequently'' became bad when mankind rejected God.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::: We all know that '''your'' God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
::::* Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?
:::You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.
::::::Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I think we are going around in circles now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about ''Christianity'', not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: There are ''Christians'' who hold such views, but it is not a part of ''Christianity'', which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.
::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.
::::::So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.
::::::: For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?
::::::: Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: I didn't think that you ''intended'' it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The ''non''-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I ''do'' tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I ''don't'' read ''all'' the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.
::::::Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.
::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?
::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::: Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the ''present'' within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who ''witnessed'' the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would ''assume'', and therefore ''believe'' that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?
::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::: No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.
::::::::: And scales ''evolving'' into feathers is something ''happening'', and you don't see something ''happening'' on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)
: By observing them as they are happening. Your point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:: If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::: I (in theory) ''did'' observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them ''whilst they are happening''. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::: With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::::::: Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Just like the rest of us. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::If only! Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there ''have been'' eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds. The same applies to the geology. No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history. Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness". If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research is absolute nonsense. It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses. Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth. All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::::::: What exactly is my opinion? And what's wrong with my opinion? Simply dismissing my ''argument'' like that is the resort of someone with no answer. It is ''not'' opinion that scientists haven't ''observed'' those things—you have yourself now admitted that. Come on, actually ''refute'' my argument or admit that you can't.
:::::::::::::::: Your opinion about the Bible is not based on any evidence. Why should the age of the book have any bearing on it's veracity? Is this an example of chronological snobbery?
:::::::::::::::: Your next opinion is contrary to logic. Why is it "nonsense" to claim that people who lived thousands of years ago would be eyewitnesses to events that occurred ''at the time''? Because that is the argument, and whilst you no doubt don't believe the premises, the conclusion based on those premises is entirely logical, so is not "nonsense".
:::::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:08, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Yes, all we know from our "supposed eyewitnesses" is what the Bible says about them, for these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write. God said He created the earth and everything in it in six days. Your version of events went through various changes over a period of nearly two hundred years because your "emminent scientists" couldn't agree on how it was done. What's the latest excuse today? Is it life was created after lightning hit a swamp? To me, the people you worship will come up with theory after theory after theory...as long as it doesn't include God. You need to prove God doesn't exist first before you start telling the rest of mankind as to how life was created, especially when you have no absolute proof of that whatsoever. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::::Not sure where to start with that. First of all, you just hit on a key difference between science and religion. I do not worship scientists, nor do I take what they say as fact without questioning it and deciding for myself first. Second, I said nothing about the existence of non-existence of any god. Third, I'm not telling mankind anything about how life was created, I am merely pointing out that PJR's own arguments can be applied against him. Fourth, while I have no intention of trying to prove that god doesn't exist, I can assure you that any attempt to do so would fail because those who would need to be convinced would reject any evidence provided since it "goes against the bible" or whatever they like to call it. Fifth, I doubt that anyone can prove definitely the existence of a god, which is why religions rely so much on faith. In fact, now that you mentioned it...you say that "these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write." What real proof do you have for that, other than it says so in the bible?--[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 11:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::::: And I'm not sure where to start in replying to that, but one thing I'll mention is that you are incorrect about what our response would be and about what "faith" is. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:08, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::::There's plenty of evidence out there that confirms the existence of God: in nature, in the historical record, and in the archaeological record. You said plenty in your above posting that it is a personal choice by anyone whether to accept such evidence or reject it. If someone says that Napoleon was a girl, no amount of evidence to the contrary will make him change his mind. The same thing applies to you. No amount of evidence that we can muster in support of God will cause you to change your mind about it. With all due respect, that's the sign of a closed mind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::::With all due respect to you as well, I would appreciate you not making assumptions about me. I do have an open mind, and I would absolutely love to see your evidence. I would argue that those who start all of their discussions with "the bible is fact, now let's work from there" is more a sign of a closed mind. I did say that it is a choice to accept or reject evidence, but it should be accepted or rejected based on its merits, not based on whether or not it supports your pre-existing beliefs. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 12:27, 2 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::::::BillOhannity, those are not assumptions I made about you; they are facts about you that you have given to us. As to evidence, we have some in the various articles on this site. There is much more out in print as well as the internet. By saying that you demand to see evidence from us, we have met that demand; it is your choice that you refuse to see it. The only thing further to say now is that since you insist on making this debate endless, I'm going to invoke the 90/10 rule. Please contribute to the positive content of the articles or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:37, 2 December 2007 (EST) ::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have. Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope). For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be). Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.
::::::::::: Scientists will claim/admit (depending on the circumstances) that nothing in science can be absolutely certain, but when it comes to evolution and long ages (among other things), they ''effectively'' say that it is certain. Evolution is no longer a "theory" (in the layman sense of "uncertain"), but "fact", and no alternative view (creation or intelligent design) is allowed to be considered.
::::::::::: I agree that you can't (shouldn't) apply the principles of religion to science, as "religion" claims certainty because it is the revelation of the omniscient and infallible God, which science isn't. So why does science claim that God got it wrong?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Philip, your answer touches quite a few subjects, so I'll restrict myself to a few aspects. First, you should at some point decide what an "eyewitness" is. While you demanded first that events had to be observed in the present, you now call anybody an "eyewitness" who measures indirect evidence in the present. This is so broad a definition, it covers any human observation. And you also seem like to underestimate the value of archeology, and overestimate the value of eyewitness accounts. But thats an aside. [[User:Order|Order]]
split into two sections, continues below
===Intentions===
But the important point in your reply is the last point. From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible. And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal. And I am not just talking about the parables. The bible is not a book that lends itself for literal reading. Sometimes it is difficult to know if something is a parable at all. But more important, sometimes a literal reading of the book leads to inconsistencies and absurdities. Take the differences between the two creation accounts, or when it talks about the "sons of god", or god losing against Jacob. There have been books been written by apologists about why these are not inconsistencies and absurdities. And the apologists might even be right. But if you could read the bible literally, there would be no need for apologists telling us how read it. The book itself would be sufficient.

Anyway, you seem to be angry with the scientists for proposing an old earth. However, scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see. And over the centuries even Christian scientist had to accept that the bible is not a great book when it comes to science. It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions. There is no accurate prediction of the background radiation, it doesn't explain electromagnetism, nor a useful classification of mammals, it is silent on prime number factorization, etc. Attempts at biblical science might be an intellectual stimulating subject, but even the biblical scientists looks first at the observed facts and then into the bible if he can reconcile the facts with scripture, and not the other way round.

When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down. ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it. So it is ''your'' problem to reconcile both sides, but not ''theirs''. Although your feelings are understandable, it is unjust for you to be angry with the scientists for causing you problems. They don't do it because they are evil, but because it part of the job description of what scientists do. They'd probably like you when they'd meet you.[[User:Order|Order]] 03:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:I fail to see your point about eyewitnesses. Surely "any human observation" is essentially synonymous with "eyewitness" (ignoring that one refers to the act and the other to the person).
::Your insistence on eyewitness reports is useless when everything is an eyewitness report. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: The claims of scientists regarding the Big Bang, fish turning into amphibians, dinosaurs into birds, and a whole host of other such claims are ''not'' eyewitness reports. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::You admitted before that scientific observations are eyewitness reports. It seem that you reject that scientists make any deduction from these observations. A crime scene investigator can come to the site of an accident and witness that a car is wrapped around a tree, but you don't want them to conclude from this that a car accident happened the day before, because they didn't see it happen. This is no different from archaeologist arriving at an excavation site. I am not sure why you only want to accept eyewitness reports as evidence, and not other kinds of evidence, but for the sake of argument lets assume that nothing can be assumed to have happened unless there is a first person account of the event. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::: I'm not rejecting that scientists can make deductions; I'm rejecting that those deductions have the same veracity as the observations. I'm rejecting that scientists can claim as scientific fact that dinosaurs turned into birds 65 million years ago yet dismiss biblical records as "religious", when the reality is that the Bible contains what are strongly arguably eyewitness accounts whereas the bird evolution is not an observation, but a deduction based more on ideology that observation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::With your restricted interpretation of eyewitness account, I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account. Much of it is a third person narrative, for a start. But I can already imagine that your reply will then refer to Moses, etcetera. But that would be sophistry, and as I said before I really do feel like going repeating much of the history of apologetics. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::: Even where the account was not witnesses by its human authors, it was witnesses by God, the ultimate author of the Bible, so it still ''all'' qualifies as eyewitness account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::In this case it wouldn't be an eyewitness account, but an ego document. But, under a literal interpretation the books were written by Moses, who lived at some later stage, and was definitely no eyewitness. So, in the end it is just a 3rd person account written way after the fact. Anyway, I am not sure why you keep insisting on discussing these kind of details. I am happy to engage in the intellectual game about who of us can come up with a smarter interpretation of the bible, but it strikes me as pointless. I'd rather prefer that you'd address my actual question, if and why you are so angry with those scientists. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: If God observed it and He wrote about it, that perfectly fits the definition of an eyewitness account. A "literal interpretation" refers to how it is to be understood, not who wrote it. There is a school of thought, that I go along with, that as far as Genesis is concerned, Moses compiled the book from pre-existing documents that would have been handed down to him, and these pre-existing documents were written by eyewitnesses. So in {{bible ref|Genesis|5|1}} where it says "This is the written account of Adam's line.", this would be the "signature" of Adam at the end of his account, which started in Genesis 2:4 (the chapter and verse divisions are a later innovation). So there is no reason that Genesis could not be eyewitness accounts by various people from Adam onward. I continue discussing this because you keep disputing it! I've already answered about the scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::A literal interpretation means that you interpret it literal, and not how it supposed to be understood, unless you have guidelines how it is supposed to be understood. Otherwise you are just guessing how it is to be understood. If god made the creation, him writing about it is not an eyewitness account, it is an ego-document. At the sixth day he could have told Adam anything, and there would have been no witness, to confirm the event. That is what eyewitness are for. It is traditionally believed that Moses wrote the first five books. That according to "some" schools of thought there are older sources, is just one of many explanations, and unless you have evidence that these sources existed, is is just an unsupported assumption. And for these other sources also need evidence with respect to the authorship. If your only evidence is that there is no reason why it couldn't be a eyewitness report, then you only claim that it is possible to be an eyewitness report. But what you need to show is that it is necessary. Necessary from evidence, and not necessary to save your interpretation. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: I'll rephrase my comment: ''A "literal interpretation" refers to how you understand it, not who wrote it''. You were claiming that reading it literally meant that it was written by Moses, and it was that point that I was disagreeing with. As for how one is ''supposed'' to understand it, you can usually determine that from things like the style of wording and how it was or would have been understood by the author's contemporaries. So you are not "just guessing".
::::::::::: "Eyewitness account" means that it was seen by someone there. Whether or not that person was also involved with what happened is a separate issue, so that God was the Creator does not negate that he was also an eyewitness to it. I presume that your use of "ego-document" is a pejorative way of saying "autobiographical account", and is meant to imply that it is therefore unreliable. But in this case we are talking about the infallible God Who cannot lie, so that implication is incorrect. Now you quite likely don't accept that characteristic of God, but again, that is a separate issue to the point in question, whether or not there was an eyewitness to the events.
::::::::::: "''unless you have evidence that these sources existed, is is just an unsupported assumption''": The evidence is in the literary use of "colophons", such as the "signature of Adam" that I referred to. This was the style of ancient documents, and this style is recognisable in the various sections of Genesis. So it is not an "unsupported assumption". Either way, whether God told just Adam or God told a lot more to Moses, it is still an eyewitness account, and by the infallible God Who cannot lie.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Defining "literal meaning" as how people understood it at the time when it was written, is useful, so lets stick with it. However, I didn't claim that Moses wrote the the Pentateuch, I said that this is the traditional view. Modern scholars are looking at style, word choice, and historic context, and came to the conclusion that the Pentateuch was compiled from a few earlier sources quite some time after Moses died. So, neither Adam nor Moses would be the main author, it would have been from a collection of sources, and Moses might or might not have been one of them. But if we look at the bible as contemporaries understood it, they did believe that the books were written by Moses. And both you and the modern scholars disagree with this traditional view.

Call the creation account auto-biography if you like that better. However there is no account how the auto-biography was transferred into written form, it might be Adam, it might be Moses, it might be someone else, and we do not only not know who it was, we don't even know if he is reliable. It was been said that Moses wrote down the laws, but for the rest on the Pentateuch it is mostly unclear who wrote it. When police makes a record of an eyewitness account, they make sure that they got a signature of witness and interrogator. A report of a person claiming to have heard an eyewitness account isn't an eyewitness account anymore.

And the colophon that you mentioned doesn't say that it was written by Adam, it simply says that it was about Adam and his line. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:"Modern scholars" are rejecting that the Bible is what is says it is and think that they know better. The idea that it wasn't written by Moses started with, among other things, the idea that writing hadn't been invented then, which has since shown to be wrong. It also assumes that different terminology means different authors, rather than (a) different purpose by the same author, or (b) the same author changing his style over time. In other words, those ideas that it was written later than Moses don't hold water. I don't really disagree with the traditional/biblical view. The Bible refers to the Pentateuch as "the books of Moses", and whether he is the original author or the editing compiler they are still his books.
: Under the Moses-as-compiler idea, the author of the creation account (Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a) could be God Himself, Who might well have written that part and handed it to Adam with the instruction to keep the history going. In any case, God was the ultimate author of the entire Bible (using various human "ghost writers"), and by definition He is reliable. They didn't have police in those times, or more to the point, they didn't have the same practices as today. But that doesn't mean that they don't qualify as eyewitness accounts.
: The colophon was, as I said, like the "signature" of the writer. So when it says that this is the account of Adam, it means that it's Adam's account; that Adam is the author of it.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)
The colophon says "this is the written account of Adams line", which it is, and it is not an "account by Adam". This wouldn't make much sense anyway because this account is really an "account of Adams line". It describes the line that starts with Adam and his sons, and ends with the sons of Noah, a few hundred years after Adams death.
Of course do modern scholars propose different interpretations because they thing they know better. They do exactly the same as you, when you look at style, wording, context to determine the meaning. You also think that you know better than the traditional interpretation. Asserting that a different style might be explained by a single author changing his style, is an unsupported assertion, and given the fairly substantial differences multiple authorship is at least as believable. You explanation has quite a few "could haves" and "mights", and is not exactly convincing or necessary.
And there is still more evidence that Moses wasn't the only author. For example that the Pentateuch describes his death, and events that happened afterwards, and the fact that the books use names for biblical places that weren't used in the time of Moses, but only centuries later. However, we work as agreed to work under the assumption that the audience at the when it written was able to understand it, which means it should have been written when those names were actually used. Of course, we cannot go back in time an check it, nor do we have eyewitness accounts, but neither have you.
And you can claim that there were ghostwriters, you should be a bit more specific. An eyewitness account which is passed down through works of unknown a ghostwriters isn't an eyewitness account anymore. If you explanation would be anymore vague, it could also apply to urban legends. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:31, 10 December 2007 (EST)
: The colophon can be translated in a number of ways. Regardless of the precise wording, the ''purpose'' was apparently as a signature, indicating that the account was by Adam.
: I mentioned that the colophon was at the ''end'' of the account. The line from Adam's sons to Noah is the ''next'' account, not Adam's account.
: I don't think that I know better than the traditional view, generally speaking. As a creationist I believe that Adam was created perfect and that we, his descendants, have accumulated a host of genetic errors and have deteriorated. So he was smarter than us, although we have the benefit accumulated knowledge. As a rule, therefore, I defer to the sources nearer the original than the present, unlike many modern scholars who, adopting an evolutionary assumption, think that man has improved rather than deteriorated, and that we therefore are more likely to come up with the correct answer than those that went before us.
: Claiming that a given author might change his style over time I consider to be self-evident, because I myself have done it! And that's over a space of fewer years than Moses was leading the Israelites.
: Clearly Moses didn't write the part about his own death, but that says nothing about him not writing the rest. That very argument (that he didn't write his death) was used by Thomas Paine in ''Age of Reason'', yet Paine himself admitted in a later edition of his book that the previous edition of his book contained something that he didn't write! That is clearly a silly argument. The Pentateuch describes nothing or next to nothing after his death.
: I believe that the claim that the books use names that were only in use later is probably fallacious, just as the claim that writing wasn't invented at the time was fallacious. If you give me specifics, I'll try and check that out further. There is the possibility, though, that a later editor did update some place names.
: The "ghostwriters" (note that I put it in quote marks) were people like Moses, who wrote under God's inspiration. It was their own words and style, but with God's guidance and guarantee of accuracy. The term "ghostwriters" in this case does not mean that their names are not known.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks for admitting that the colophon can be translated in a number of ways. So you do admit that there is not only one valid interpretation. What the purpose was can clearly be disputed, and you know perfectly well that the colophon view is a minority view. But eitherway, we established that the colophons can be translated in more than one way.
Of course an author can change his style. You are right. But you have to prove that this author has changed his style. Of course, maybe the author changed his style. Maybe it is a literal device. Who knows. You don't either. So what you do is guessing.
Why should I tell you the name of a city that wasn't name, if you already tell me that you will discount any such name with the argument that " a later editor did update some place names."
Your theory about the ghostwriters is very nice theory, but it doesn't even come close to be a scientific theory, since you got neither proof, nor evidence, and certainly no eyewitness accounts. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:02, 15 December 2007 (EST)
: I had never indicated that the colophon could only be translated one way, and I had at least implied that there is more than one valid view. My point was always that there is some evidence (even if not conclusive) that all of Genesis (apart from chapter 1) could have been written by human eyewitnesses, and that any claim that it was was not recorded by eyewitnesses because the events predated Moses was an invalid argument.
: Why is the onus on me to prove that he changed his style? The claim has always been that Moses was responsible for the first five books, and surely if someone want to claim otherwise, the onus on them is to show that he didn't change his style, especially given your acknowledgement that an author could do this.
: I didn't say that I ''would'' discount any such city name as a later editorial update. I merely pointed out that this might be a possible explanation. I also notice that you didn't dispute that this might be possible. If you are acknowledging that this is possible, it follows that city names unknown in Moses' time cannot therefore be used as evidence that it must have been written later than Moses' time.
: Your last comment about ghostwriters seems to reject my argument by requiring a standard that could not be met by any theory, and begs the question by declaring that there were no eyewitness accounts, the very point in contention.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 16 December 2007 (EST)
A lot of things are possible, and of course you can have many alternative possible explanations. But the interesting ones are the likely explanation. Given the inconsistencies, it might be caused by a single person changing his style, but it could also be due to an editor compiling from different sources, especially since it is very likely that someone edited the text anyway some time after Moss death. It is argued that the changes are too big for a single author. While possible, it is not considered to be the most likely explanation that there were at least two stories, before an editor went to work. Anyway, point is there a lot possible, but that doesn't make it likely. A explanation becomes more likely, the more supporting evidence you have, and evidence can come in different shape and forms. The eyewitness standard was set by yourself, and indeed I think it is a bit unreasonable. If you defend an explanation that is just possible, you should at least have the courage to admit, that other explanations are considered more likely. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)
: You are wanting me to admit that my view of how the Bible came to be written is just one of several possible explanations. Okay, I admit that—because I've never claimed otherwise. It was you who said that you could argue that it ''wasn't'' an eyewitness account ("I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account"), and I was merely countering that argument, by pointing out ''possible'' explanations that would allow it to be an human eyewitness account. If I can show even one ''possible'' explanation (i.e. one that you can't refute as being ''impossible''), then I have succeeded in refuting your assertion that it ''could not have been'' an eyewitness account. Now you are (unwittingly?) trying to turn the argument around to get me to admit that my explanation is not the only possible one! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If you defense is that it is logically possible to be an eyewitness account, you are indeed right, it is logically possible. But also a good work of fiction is logically possible, so this is a fairly weak argument to support your position. That is why I called this kind of argument sophistry. I thought that you were claiming that you had actual evidence to support your position. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
:As I said, I was merely trying to refute your claim that it could not be an eyewitness account. It looks like I succeeded in that. The only thing I failed in was in not doing what you thought I was doing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Feel free to declare victory on this point. You are quite far away from your earlier position that your view is the only legitimate view, but now it is merely one view that could be logically possible. If you are happy with such a minimal position, I'd call that a victory too. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: I've never said that "my view is the only legitimate view" in so many words. That's your spin. I have said that the young-Earth view is the only legitimate way to understand the Bible, but I never said that the colophon explanation of how Genesis was written was the only legitimate view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Your way is only one way to understand the bible, since it may be translated in different ways, understood in different ways, and interpreted in different ways, different theories how the bible came about. And saying that your interpretation might be logical possible, that is not exactly much. There are other interpretations that are logically possible, too. It seem like you are arguing with the desired outcome in mind, namely that the scripture must be correct on a fairly literal level, and with that in mind there indeed only a few possible interpretations. And yours might be one of them. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh dear, we've been over this already. There's so many unsubstantiated generalisations in that paragraph that I'm not going to repeat myself going over them all again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:49, 21 December 2007 (EST)

===Scientific Claims===
:"''From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''": What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.
::What you demand of these scientists is to subject themselves to your beliefs, even though they do not share your beliefs. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: No, but I expect them to recognise and acknowledge that they are ''beliefs'', not ''scientific facts'', and therefore not claim, whether explicitly or implicitly, that the Bible is wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::Most will be happy to concede that your statements are "beliefs" and not "scienitifc fact". Isn't it you who doesn't distinguish between belief and scientific fact? Anyway, what gives you the right to demand from them to not present scientific theories that oppose you beliefs? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::: I do distinguish between belief and "scientific fact", but I reject that things like evolution are scientific fact: they are belief, but although they, as you say, will be happy to "concede" ("claim" would be more accurate) that my statements are beliefs, they won't admit this of their own statements. I'm not rejecting their right to propose scientific theories that oppose my beliefs. I'm rejecting their right to propose atheistic beliefs as scientific facts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::You should welcome it, because as soon as it is proposed as scientific it is open to criticism and scrutiny. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::: If only it was. But materialists do not allow (to the extent that they can stop it, such as in secular scientific journals) their views to be scrutinised and questioned from a non-materialist point of view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::You can question them from a non-materialist view point as you like. But that unless you provide material evidence, its not science. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: Yet the same doesn't seem to apply for goo-to-you evolution, which has almost no material evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::There is no evidence that you accept, but here is quite some evidence, and in addition it is back-up by mathematical models which have been proven to work. That you only accept eyewitness reports is your choice, but you can't blame that other prefer to rely on more reliable evidence than eyewitness reports. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The maths actually work against it, as shown by evolutionists Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. As for there being some evidence, claiming it without demonstrating it is a non-argument. There is almost no material evidence. No, I can't blame others for relying on more reliable evidence, but I'm disputing that the arguments based on materialistic assumptions ''are'' more reliable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Hoyle and Wrickramasinghe were advocating panspermia, and their argument deals with abiogenisis. We've been over this before. Look at the work of Rechenberg, Fogel, and Holland, who have proven that simple arguments from improbability are not applying to evolution, i.e. they have proven mathematically that evolution is not a random walk. If you want to promote Hoyle's idea of panspermia to solve the problem of abiogenesis, feel free to do so. But this is a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
: Evolution is by definition random at heart, because it excludes design. Yes, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were talking about abiogenesis, so that was a bad example. That they were promoting the idea of panspermia is irrelevant, though. Evolutionary computations do not prove that the mathematics of evolution work, because they are not trying to do that, and they are not actually models of evolution, but [[natural selection]]. See the dam example in that link (including in the last section) for further information, and see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5089/ here] for more reasons why the computations are not like evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Your first sentence is mistaken on two accounts. First, evolution is not random, if you mean with random, random walk. If you mean without teleological purpose you are right, but that meaning of "random", doesn't allow you to calculate probabilities. If you calculate probabilities, your random wither mean that "uniform distribution" or "random walk" and evolution is neither. Because selection isn't random. And you can calculate at what population size genetic drift (random walk) is superseded by the effects of selection.

Second, randomness doesn't exclude design. If you are using a wifi connection right now, your are using a randomized backoff algorithm. And that has been purposefully designed. Randomness can be perfectly well be part of design.

Nice example with the dam example. You can show many instances of evolution that are different from biological evolution, but an instance that proves that evolution works for a dam, doesn't disprove other instances of the principle of evolution. It is like saying just because one instance of a wiki based encyclopedia does work, another instances of a wiki based encyclopedia that is different in many details cannot work. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)

: By random I do mean without purpose or design. I don't follow the second half of your first paragraph.
: I never claimed that randomness excluded design. I said that lack of design means randomness. Sure, a designed system could incorporate randomness (but see a following comment), but an undesigned system must rely on randomness, or chance, and chance/randomness doesn't produce design, yet we see design everywhere. However, systems that use a randomness algorithm actually produce ''pseudo-randomness'', because true randomness cannot be designed, as randomness is the opposite of design. It actually takes some quite clever design to get the pseudo-randomness to be a close representation of true randomness!
: You appear to be missing the point in the last paragraph. The link didn't show evolution working with the dam example. It showed ''natural selection'' working, but natural selection is not evolution, and it showed that natural selection only worked because you had design to start with. Your last sentence is not what I was claiming.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 16 December 2007 (EST)
If you use "random" without purpose or design, you cannot use probabilistic arguments anymore. If you define "random" as without purpose, you are right, evolution is random. But you still can't argue from probability, under this definition. And saying that "random" means "without design" is a funny definition. Evolution doesn't claim that it is "without design", it is actually all about design.

If you can implement true-randomness is a somewhat philosophical debate, but a hot cup of coffee will get a long way.

Of yes the selection bit in the article. That was indeed an interesting bit, that I forgot to mention. First, the authors claim that selection is working, and not producing random results. Then they claim that evolution is only working if the rate of mutation is big. And then they claim that evolution with little mutation is actually selection. And that it therefore cannot work. Can these authors make up their mind if selection works or not? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:16, 16 December 2007 (EST)
: I mentioned that I didn't follow all that you were saying, but with your last post I think I understand better what you were getting at. Although I mean "without purpose", it follows that it will also be statistically random. Therefore you ''can'' use probability arguments. If nobody purposely designed life, then it had to come together by chance interaction of molecules, but you can use probability arguments to show that the chances of this are zero.
: "Design" requires a ''designer''. No designer: no design, and you're back to chance.
: I think you are reading things into the article. Please explain where the author (singular) makes all these inconsistent claims.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 17 December 2007 (EST)
The authors first claim that genetic algorithm are suitable for solving multidimensional problems, and later complain that the dam example only works because they only consider a one-dimensional problem at a a time. But the fundamental problem is that they discuss a example of a genetic algorithm that works, and argue that this shows that the same principles do not work in nature. That is a fallacy. All they do is to show that the robot/dam example is not biological evolution. I figure that that is fairly obvious.

It appears that you define design as "''Design'' requires a ''designer''", and everything you want to say about it is then a tautology. Yes, in that case there is no design in nature. But this is just, because you define it that way. So, you eye is not designed. And don't tell me how wonderful your eye works, because your definition of "design" doesn't depend on how things work.

Anyway, what I still try to understand is you claim that the absence of "purpose" allows you to calculate "probabilities". I do know what random means, namely that you got a sample space, and a uniform distribution of that sample space. I suspect that it then depends on you definition of "purpose", since I cannot see how the absence of "purpose" ensure that the distribution on the sample space is uniform. Neither "purpose" in it functional nor teleological meaning do make sense. Rather than guess what you mean I would like to ask you to (1) define purpose, (2) give on example of a object without purpose (3) tell us what the sample space is, and why the absence of "purpose" implies that the distribution must be uniform. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:43, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: Your explanation of your objection to the article is still difficult to follow. I assume that your first reference to "dam" ("later complain that the dam example only works") was meant to be a reference to "robot". The article doesn't mention "one-dimensional". They are not saying that it doesn't work in nature. What they are saying (one of a number of points) is that the working method is so much simpler than evolution is that it can't be used as evidence that evolution works.
: Yes, design requires a designer, by definition, but your subsequent statement that that means that there is no design in nature is begging the question, by ''assuming'' that it wasn't designed. The point is that "design" is apparent from its attributes, and we can see design in nature (things working together in non-random ways). As we can see design, and design requires a designer, then there must be a designer. This is working from the evidence to the conclusion, it's not a tautology. Saying that there is no designer because there is no design because design requires a designer but there is no designer is the tautology.
: If there is no design, then life, etc. has come about through random processes (mutations, etc.), and because they are random, the probabilities can be mathematically calculated.
: "Purpose" is the intent of the designer. An example of something without purpose is a mutation. I'm not into the terminology that you are using, so I'm not sure that I can answer your third request. I guess that the "sample space" might be "life". Without design (hence without purpose), mutations will occur randomly, and randomness only produces noise, not [[information]]. Information is non-uniform, whereas noise is statistically uniform. These sentences have non-random arrangements of letters, and the number of uses of each letter is therefore different ("E" occurs much more frequently than others, for example). If the letters were random, you'd expect all 26 letters to have about the same number of occurrences. Non-randomness/information requires design. Life is non-random. Life contains information (DNA). Therfore, life was designed.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 18 December 2007 (EST)
You have to make up your mind if you define "desgin" by it origins or its structure. If you use the definition of design from structure to identify design, you cannot change to the definition of design from origin to show that it there must be a designer. That is just playing with two definitions of the word design. Nobody argues with the fact that life exhibits structure. Under that definition life exhibits design. Call it ''apparent design'' if it makes you happier.

Indeed mutations do occur random. Do you know how selection works? Not-random. And together it is still not random. There is more to evolution than genetic drift.

So the challenge remains to give me one single example of something without purpose, and how that lack of purpose implies randomness. An example of something without purpose, would for example be a stone rolling down a hill, set in motion by say rainfall. If you tell me why that is random in the sense that it produces a uniform distribution over a sample space, and that the lack of intent was instrumental to produce the uniform distribution, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:34, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: "''Nobody argues with the fact that life exhibits structure. Under that definition life exhibits design.''": You've no doubt heard the expression that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck! You have to explain how something that exhibits all the hallmarks of design is not designed.
: If mutations are random, not occurring by design, and natural selection was brought about by random processes, not design, then where does design come into it? Yes, natural selection is ''not'' random, but surely that speaks of ''design''. Otherwise, if mutations are random and natural selection is the product of randomness, where does non-randomness (design) enter the picture?
: I have already given you an example of randomness (a mutation). I have already answered the rest of your question when I gave you the example of the letters making up the sentence. How about you work with that and point out the flaws in that example, instead of asking for another?
: Also, perhaps you could give me an example of something that exhibits evidence of design (i.e. structure and complexity) but which we know from observation of it occurring was not designed by an intelligent being. Exclude life itself (because that's what we are discussing and we didn't see the origins of life), exclude individual living things because we know that they come about from other living things, and tracing it back gets back to the origin of life, already excluded), and exclude crystals, because they are not complex and derive any apparent design they have from their chemical properties (unlike complex things). Can you provide any examples?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:22, 20 December 2007 (EST)
You can do it without this little game with the two definitions of design, can't you. Because in your very first senetence you do it straight again. Argue from first structure, and then switch to the definition from origin. So call it ''apparent design''. Or structure. And nature exhibits structure. And there is structure in nature that is not biological.

Selection is no random at all. That is the the crucial point. If all pandas go extinct, then that is not random. That cases of infections with penicillin resistant golden staph bacteria increases is not random.

If your argument is from letters making up a sentence, then you should allow genetic algorithms, because that is exactly how they work, on strings. And don't give me a link telling be that a certain dam example isn't anything like biological evolution. That is arguing from a single non-related example. It has been mathematically proven, that the average fitness of a set of sample solutions multi-dimensional optimization problems of finite dimensionality, will improve from one iteration to the next under a scheme of mutations and selection. Your string with about 30 characters is peanuts compared to optimization problems that have been tackles with such algorithms.

So, and I am a bit disappointed that you gave up to provide an example. If you cannot give a single example for something where the lack of purpose implies randomness, your claim that lack of purpose implies randomness can't be that strong. It seems like you cannot come up with evidence for your own position, but only criticize the position of others. Creationists are often blamed for arguing along the line "you cannot explain everything therefore my explanation must be right". We all know that that is a poor argument. It seems like you ask me for an example, rather than do your own homework, because this is the only way you know to argue your case. You still operate under the assumption that I want to convince you of evolution, or the the big bang, while my position merely that you should be able to admit to yourself that your view could be wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: I DID give you an example, and I reminded you that I gave you an example. Saying that I didn't does not make it so. And I asked you to point out the flaws in the sentence example I gave you, and asked for an example of something that appears to be designed but isn't. You neither pointed out any flaws (calling it "peanuts" is not pointing out a flaw), nor provided the example that I asked for. What do you mean by my view "could be wrong". I'm not claiming infallibility, if that's what you're after. But I am claiming that the evidence is on my side, and if you want me to admit that I "could be wrong", then the onus is on you to show how it "could be wrong". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 21 December 2007 (EST)

You repeated the observation that mutations are random, which is probably true and barely contested, but you didn't show that it is the lack of purpose that makes it random. And that was your claim. Because you used the general claim that lack of purpose implies randomness, to characterize all of evolution as random, even the bits that aren't random. So, we are still waiting for an example where randomness is caused by a lack of purpose.

The Creation Study Committee for the Presbyterian Church made very detailed report about how you could be wrong. It is nice that you ask me to come up with a theory, but you might already have noticed that I am fairly reluctant to play along with the creationist game of criticizing others, under the assumption that this proves their theory to be right. If you claim to have the evidence on your side, you could tell us what this evidence is. We will then see how strong your evidence is and if it measures up to your testability criterion. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:49, 21 December 2007 (EST)
: That a "lack of purpose...makes it random" is true ''by definition'': "Random, ''adj.'' 1. going, made, occurring, etc., without definite aim, purpose, or reason." (The Penguin Macquarie Dictionary).
: You'll need to remind me what it is that you think I "could be wrong" on.
: Creationists do not criticise others under the assumption that this proves their theory to be right.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks to admit that you use random according to this definition. And nobody contests that evolution is thought to be random under this definition. Which is distinct from the definition: uniform distribution over a sample space. But you wanted to compute probabilities. What are the other definitions in your dictionary? In Merrian Webster the second meaning is that of uniform distributions over a sample space. So, when are you going to present an instance where a lack of purpose or design leads necessarily to a uniform distribution over a sample space? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

===Interpretations===
:"''And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal.''": I don't read all of it literally because it wasn't meant to be read literally! If I read it the way that it was meant to be understood, how does that make it "my" reading?
::How do you know how it should be understood? You do it by interpretation. Do you think that old earthers decided to go for an interpretation which they assume to be wrong? No, they follow it, because they think that it is the right interpretation. Anything else implies that they are kind of insane. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: How does anyone know how any language should be understood? How do you understand what I'm typing here? You familiarise yourself with the way words are used and sentences are constructed. In Genesis, the word for day (''yom''), when used with a number, or with the word morning, or with the word evening (and it is used with all three in Genesis) ''only ever'' means an ordinary day. And the Hebrew experts agree on this (see [[Creation Week]]). Furthermore, the believers in an old Earth acknowledge that they do so for extra-biblical reasons: see [[Old Earth Creationism]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::You act under the assumption that I want to convince you that your interpretation is wrong. But that is not my intention, so there is no need to go over all the apologist arguments again. I know where to find the answersingenesis site, and you know where to find apologist literature, that goes back to Augustine, contradicting your interpretation of the word "yom". My intention is really not to repeat this apologist argument. My intention is to make you realize that people who disagree with your interpretation do not do this because they are evil, mean spirited or malicious. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::: No, I'm acting under the assumption that you want to convince me that I can't be sure of my interpretation. No, I don't know where to find apologist literature that contradicts the expert view regarding the word "yom". Perhaps you could point me to it. I have already pointed out that I'm not claiming that people who disagree are evil, mean spirited, or malicious. I'm merely saying that they have those views for the wrong reasons and there arguments are invalid. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::I am fairly sure that you are sure of your interpretation. Instead I try to convince you that others are evenly sure. I assumed you knew about the different interpretations, because you immediately took off to explain the word "yom". A very detailed report outlining a few important interpretations of the creation story can be found in a report by Creation Study Committee for the Presbyterian Churches of America [http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html]. The committee could not agree on any of these interpretations, and agreed to disagree. They all agree that the creation story describes a historical event, but they could not decide how to interpret the account. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::: Yes, I agree that the people holding to an old-Earth view are also sure, but that doesn't mean that their case is at all valid. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:"''Take the differences between the two creation accounts...''": What so contradictory about them? One is written as a chronological sequence of creation week events, the other as a non-chronological look at the first family. There's no contradictions.
::Thanks for explaining that there is no contradiction under this interpretation. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: Well, you have not provided any evidence of any contradictions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::See above.[[User:Order|Order]]
::::: There's no evidence above, so your claim that there is contradiction fails. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::See below.[[User:Order|Order]]
:"''...or when it talks about the "sons of god"...''": Yes, reading a metaphor or euphemism literally can cause problems, which is why I don't do it.
::Thanks, for telling us under which interpretation this is correct. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: That's reading it the way it was meant to be read. It's not an optional "interpretation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::See above.[[User:Order|Order]]
::::: Is that the best response you can give? That's no response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::See below.[[User:Order|Order]]
:"''But if you could read the bible literally, there would be no need for apologists ...''": The reason there are apologists is not because of contradictions, but because of people claiming that it says things that it doesn't.
::Yes, and they can claim this, because it is only correct given a certain interpretation rather than under a straightforward literal reading.[[User:Order|Order]]
::: No, they claim it because they want to find fault with the Bible. I've seen so many absolutely ridiculous arguments... They are searching for any possible contradiction or discrepancy that they will argue from silence, read metaphor literally (and accuse us of being the literalists!), etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::Yes some apologist use flaky arguments, but there also genuine professional apologists who try to make a sound argument. What I object to is not your argument with respect to the bible quote, but your insistence to portray people who disagree with you as malicious. All people I have met that think about the subject, make genuine and honest effort to understand the world around them, and the bible is part of their world, and you are doing unjust in assuming ulterior motives. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::: Please show me where I have accused them of being malicious or apologise. And how am I being unjust in assuming ulterior motives. There's nothing wrong with accusing them of that if it's true, and you haven't shown that it isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::You'll need evidence that they do. And not just anecdotal evidence. You said repeatedly that the motive was the promotion atheism. I happen to know a professional apologist who doesn't share you view on the creation story. And he gives many talk criticizing Dawkins and atheism. Therefore, I have good reasons to believe that he doesn't defend an old earth view because he want to promote atheism. The same holds, I guess, for the members of the creation study group of the presbyterian church. Those who defend the day-age interpretation don't defend it to promote atheism. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::: Perhaps I've not been sufficiently clear. The old-Earth paradigm is atheistic in its origins and in principle (for reasons already explained), but I'm not accusing compromising Christians of trying to promote atheism. Rather, I'm accusing them of trying to harmonise Scripture with what they ''believe'' to be solid science, but which is really atheistic philosophy, and doing so by reading Scripture in a way that is not how it was meant to be understood. As some creationists have said, why is it that in trying to harmonise the Bible and old-Earth views, it is the Bible that gets "interpreted". To put it another way, why do they "interpret" the six days of creation in the Bible to actually mean millions of years rather than "interpret" the millions of years to actually mean six days? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::We know that you think that the old-earth view is atheistic by nature, but there are ample theistic old-earth views. Some are a reaction to bring scientific findings, some out of philosophical considerations. St Augustine already said in 400 AD clearly that it is a folly to reject knowledge about the universe because it contradicts scripture. He said this way before Darwin, and even though he was a in favor of a young earth. But he rejected the 6-day account, mostly for philosophical reasons. So, the call to "harmonize" scripture with generally accepted knowledge is as least as old as St Augustine. Not sure if you want to argue that this Saint qualifies as atheist origin. And if you don't believe me, the Creation Study Group report for the presbyterian church says explicitly about the old earth view being a reaction to Darwin: ''This is not so, however, as we can clearly appreciate from the discussion under question 3) above where we see that a view open to the possibility of creative days of unspecified length was held by prominent and influential church fathers, some of whom lived long before Charles Darwin. '' (Section IV.B.4) [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, Augustine did reject literal days, and not for atheistic reasons, just like modern old-Earth creationists. But like them, he did so for reasons other than that's what the Bible teaches. Augustine was not a Hebrew scholar, and tended to allegorise almost everything. He proposed his non-literal days idea because he couldn't believe that God would take so long, not because that's what the Scripture said! So you are right, attempting to interpret Scripture to mean something other than what it actually says is quite old, but that doesn't justify it. Nevertheless, the attempts to make the days into ''long'' periods of time are because they are trying to harmonise Scripture with the atheistic idea of long ages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::Not sure why you feel the urge to dismiss all other interpretations, even the one by Augustine, as unjustified, and in addition feel the need to put your scholarship above those of some of most prominent church teachers in history. There can be many justified interpretations, while there can be at most one correct one. Modern old earth interpretation might very well be fed by the urge to harmonize it with new scientific findings, but this practice has been advocated at least since St. Augustine. And there existed long days interpretations long before Darwin, apparently already in the 2nd century B.C. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::: I feel the urge to dismiss them as unjustified because I believe that they ''are'' unjustified. I'm not going above some of the most prominent church teachers; I'm going along with the vast majority. Augustine was an exception to the rule, but even so did not attempt to harmonise with scientific findings nor with old Earth ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
We do know that you think that they are unjustified. And calling someone like Augustine unqualified, looks like you are picking on someone just because the person disagrees with you. Furthermore, St. Augustine did advise to harmonize scripture with scientific findings. He explicitly acknowledged that people of another persuasion can have knowledge about the world, and said that is "disgraceful" to see people arguing against them just because it might be in conflict with scripture. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
: I never said that Augustine was "unqualified". I said that he was an "exception". Neither did I deny that he promoted the idea of harmonising Scripture with scientific findings. I merely said that that's not what he was doing in this case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 10 December 2007 (EST)

===Atheist Science===
:"''...scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see.''": Are you seriously claiming that atheistic scientists (i.e. the subset that is atheistic) have no motive to find explanations that exclude God? Even evolutionists will admit that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God, and this was also the motive of people like Hutton and Lyell.
::Yes, this is exactly what I am claiming. You claim that scientists have as ulterior motives to bring down god. Darwin did not travel around the world because he was angry with god, but because he was curious. He didn't propose his theory because he wanted to debunk the bible, but because lamarckism and catastrophism didn't explain what he saw very well. {{unsigned|Order}}
::: Then you have an impossibly-high opinion of scientists as being totally objective, and are wrong, as I already mentioned that even evolutionists admit that this was Darwin's motive. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::Where do I say that scientists are totally objective? What I say is that most scientists are genuinely curious, and mostly driven by honorable motives. Of course they are humans, too. You in contrast portray the scientific community as this great anti-biblical conspiracy of people with bad intentions. And this while intentions are quite irrelevant in science, relevant is what evidence exists to support or reject a theory. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::: You said that scientists promote a theory simply because they try and come up with the best explanation, and reject that their religious views colour their thinking. That amounts to saying that they are totally objective.
::::: I do not claim that there is a conspiracy. Rather, there is a ruling paradigm and ideology that overrides objectiveness.
::::: I wish you'd tell anti-creationists, including American judges, that intentions are irrelevant. They reject creationism not because of the evidence, but because of the intentions of those holding to it.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: No, there are other things that may color the thinking of scientists. You pointed to a few of them. And if you are concerned about paradigms, I guess Kuhn has written about paradigm shifts in science. It is a recognized concept in the philosophy of science. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:"''And over the centuries even Christian scientist had to accept that the bible is not a great book when it comes to science.''": Only the ones that have been taken in by the atheistic ideas of Hutton, Darwin, etc.
::Even Christian had to accept that. Catastrophism, for example, lost out in an almost 100% Christian environment because it didn't explain the observed facts very well, not because people turned atheist. Scientists really tried hard to make it work, but they couldn't.[[User:Order|Order]]
::: Catastrophism lost out because people such as Hutton ''deemed'' it to be wrong, and the ''evidence'' has led to a partial return to catastrophism. So you have that back to front. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Yes, that has happened to some extend. There are a fair number of scientist believing that the great mass extinction was caused by an catastrophic event, while others are still skeptical. It is a nice illustration that it is not the intentions that matter in science, but that the scientific community changes its stance based on evidence. Right now some scientist are looking for evidence supporting the theory, while other are looking for evidence contradicting it. And how to correctly interpret the bible plays no role at all in this discussion. Only physical evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::: Except that they will not even ''consider'' an explanation that would be consistent with the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::You might want to look at the reasons why they won't look at the explanation? Is it atheism or something else? And you are a bit too negative. In biblical archeology, for example, scientist are actually quite pleased if the find a site that was already mentioned in biblical times. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::: I was generalising; I recognise that there are exceptions, although the archaeological exceptions that you mention are generally not ones that go against the materialistic paradigm. Why won't they look at the explanation? Well, you tell me, if you think it's something else. They do say that they won't consider it because it invokes the supernatural, and science can't study the supernatural. Now it is true that science can't study the supernatural, but it doesn't follow from that that science can't consider a supernatural explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::In science it is all about testability. This doesn't mean that you have to repeat the event, but that you can repeat the observation that support a theory, and that you can predict observations. Supernatural explanation fails in this respect, by you own admission, since you can't study the supernatural. But also this is a digression, and should be discussed on the Philosophy of Science or Creationism pages. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: You can have (and test) observations that ''support'' the theory, but you can't test the theory itself if it was in the past. Repeatability frequently applies to the test, not the event, but in those cases it is the observation that is being checked, not whether the event happened. That is, you can repeatedly test the C12/C14 ratio in a sample, but you are checking the ratio, you are not checking how that ratio came to be there. To study how it came to be there, you would need to repeat the original event, which is, of course, impossible. So the observation of the ratio is science, but the explanation of how it came to be there is not. And whilst you can't study the supernatural, you can make predictions based on a supernatural explanation and test those predictions. And this has been done (i.e. predictions based on the creation model) with the predictions being tested and found to be correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::It is good to see that creationist made some progress, but of course we do not know where this will lead. If we can test the supernatural, science can start cataloging it. Maybe at some point in the future we know why nature is fond of beetles. But as said, when we start testing the supernatural, it might turn out to quite different from what any of us believes. Would you accept any evidence that would contradict your beliefs? If the preditions creationists fail, would it make you change your view on this matter?
::::::::::Anyway, you seem to be mostly hiding behind the fact that we cannot go back in time, which is true. But, even if you would be able to repeat the original event, the observations might still be wrong, just like observations in the present can be wrong. In addition, if you reject any claim about the past, because the past is inaccessible, then it would evenly apply to your claims about the past. You cannot go back in time and see creation happen either. If you reject scientific theories because their observations might be wrong, your theory explaining those same observations has exactly the same problem. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The tests are not of the supernatural itself, but of predictions if the creation account is true. Sure, I'd accept evidence that contradicts my beliefs, because my beliefs are based on evidence. A failed prediction, however, is not itself conclusive.
::::::::::: I'm not "hiding", just pointing out a very pertinent fact. I'm not rejecting "any claim about the past". I'm rejecting claims based on ideology where they conflict with reliable eyewitness accounts. I'm rejecting the claim that ideology-based science is the only reliable source of information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
If a test of a prediction of the supernatural wants qualify as a scientific test, it should, if it fails, tell you something about the supernatural. And you have been arguing that you can't know about things that happened in the past. But feel free to drop that assumption, it wasn't very useful. However, if you want to stick to this "pertinent fact", then accept that this pertinent fact also applies to you. We know that you think that certain findings are based on ideology, but it seem like you are labeling them as ideological because the are against your "ideology". The findings you are arguing against have been proposed and observed by scientists with all kinds of background, and it would be hard to find an ideology that they all share. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
: I have not been arguing that you can't know about things that happened in the past. I've been saying that you ''can'' know about them, from eyewitness accounts, but not directly from scientific investigation.
: No, I'm not labelling them ideology ''because'' they are against my ideology, but because they ''are'' ideology. Yes, mine are based on ideology also. Creationists have been saying this for years, that it all comes down to ideology. It's the secularists who deny or won't admit this. True, there are a range of ideologies, but they can be put into two groups of theistic and atheistic.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: For more on eyewitnesses vs. scientific evidence, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5470 this article] posted today. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:10, 11 December 2007 (EST)
This article just observes the obvious that scientific findings are falsifiable. Not exactly news. And talking about forensic evidence. Quite a lot of wrong convictions were based on faulty eyewitness reports, and they have been overturned by scientific evidence. If modern forensic science shows one thing, together with science of human perception and memory, it is that eyewitness reports can be highly unreliable. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:22, 15 December 2007 (EST)
: Did you actually read that article? Or do you not understand falsifiability? It didn't mention falsifiability. It is basically arguing that your assertion is wrong. And I reject that "quite a lot" of wrong convictions are based on faulty eyewitness reports. No doubt there are some, particularly where there was only a single eyewitness, but I really doubt that the numbers are that high. I realise that it's only one case, but the case of [[Azaria Chamberlain]] is an example of the opposite. That article doesn't explain this point, but in that case the scientific evidence contradicted the accounts of the witnesses, and Lindy Chamberlain was convicted. It was later shown that the scientific evidence was wrong, and the witnesses were correct. Essentially, a person was wrongly convicted and sentenced to life with hard labour simply because the jurors believed the scientific evidence to be more reliable than the witnesses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:55, 16 December 2007 (EST)
The article is about falsifiability. It says that scientist can have it wrong. They propose a theory, look for evidence, and then its wrong, and they have to amend or change the theory.

With respect to eyewitness accounts, here is a brief news item on BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm]. If you want to know more google "unreliable eyewitness accounts". It is not exactly new scientific news that memories can be deceptive, planted, or imagined. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 16 December 2007 (EST)
:It appears that you don't understand falsifiability. The article is not ''about'' falsifiability, except to the extent that studying the past is not falsifiable. In other words, it's the opposite of your claim that "scientific findings are falsifiable". True scientific claims are, but claims about the past are not, and that was the point.
: Yes, memories can be wrong, but notice also in that article that the detectives want to get to the witnesses before the media. Why? Because the witnesses are going to give them important information. Also note that it talks about convictions based on eyewitnesses. Why? Because they are generally recognised as being reliable enough to convict on. I'd suggest that the BBC article and the concerns raised in it are highlighting extreme cases and the exceptions to the rule rather than giving a true picture of the reliability of witnesses.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:46, 17 December 2007 (EST)
The BBC article highlight that if you are not very careful about your eyewitness, their accounts can become easily tainted. I am not sure if the eyewitnesses that you believe to have existed never talked to one another, or to a third person, before they put the alleged eyewitness account into writing. Do you have evidence that they were so diligent.

Where do I not know falsifiability? The article states that the theories about the past can be wrong, which mean that these theories are falsifiable. It then goes on to tell us that they are sometimes wrong. No, surprise, because they were falsifiable. To conclude from this that the only really reliable evidence are eyewitness accounts, is quite a step, ignoring what we know about the reliability of eyewitnesses. Even the article says this because they expressively state that eyewitness accounts have to be corroborated to be useful. And quite often they cannot be supported by evidence. See the BBC article.

If you think that the past is not falsifiable, why do you want to convince anybody here about things in the past. This position is close to solipsism. If we accept that as an argument, you do not know anything certain either. If that would be true, I could freely claim that the first books of moses were written by two marsupials and a ham sandwich. You wouldn't be able to falsify that. Or that the world got created last Thursday. If you need such a strong assumption to support your position, you position cannot be too strong. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: Yes, you have to be careful about eyewitnesses. The article I linked to referred to ''reliable'' eyewitnesses. I'm quite sure that the eyewitnesses that I'm talking about didn't have TV reports to cloud their views!
: No, you have falsifiability wrong. If an idea is falsifiable, it doesn't mean that it can be wrong, it means that it can be ''scientifically shown to be'' wrong. Actually, it's more precise than that. To be falsifiable, the scientists have to be able to ''devise a test'' to see if the theory can be wrong. The article pointed out that some theories were shown to be wrong ''not by the science'', but by eyewitnesses. Even with the example the article gave where new evidence turned up later, this falsified the theory, but it wasn't a test that could be devised to check the theory, else they would (or should) have done it at the time.
: Yes, it does say that eyewitnesses have to be corroborated, but it's talking about being corroborated ''by another eyewitness'' (the Bible reference is about having ''more than one witness'').
: I do think that the past is not falsifiable (i.e. able to have a scientific test devised to check if the claim is wrong), but that doesn't mean that you can't check out ideas about the past. There's other ways of checking than scientific tests, such as seeing if another witness corroborates the story, seeing if it's logically consistent, etc. Even these methods may not be able to "prove" that the history is correct, but you can often decide if it's is ''probably'' correct (and yes, scientific tests can help towards this, too). So, I could not "falsify" (scientifically test) whether the Pentateuch was written by two marsupials and a ham sandwich, but I could quite readily conclude that it's ''extremely'' unlikely to be true given that we know of no marsupials or ham sandwiches that could write, let alone see (in the case of the sandwich), etc. Of course we could apply Occam's Razor also (remembering that Occam's Razor is a guiding principle, not a test of truth). Just because it's not scientifically testable doesn't mean that we can't make a reasonable judgement of the claim.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)
First, it is not the technology of TV that makes eyewitness report unreliable, it is that eyewitness talk to one another or to other people. And I guess that there were other people around. And there have been some fairly famous cases were scores of eyewitnesses got it wrong. Also in court, or CSI, physical evidence is more useful to turn down a conviction than any eyewitness.

And make up your mind if the past is falsifiable or not. You can't claim that its not, and then say that you can use logic, other eyewitnesses, or physical evidence from archeology to show that it is highly unlikely. This is exactly what science does, looking for the most likely explanation, ruling out the unlikely ones. And this principle applies as much to the past as to the present. And logic, eyewitness accounts (to some extend) and archaeological evidence, are generally used to test an hypothesis. Any test boils in the end down to logic.

It seems like you want use the strict eyewitness standard on others, but use a more reasonable standard for yourself. You want it both ways. But under your strict eyewitness standard, you weren't even able to show that the gospels were legit, while the non-canonical gospels weren't. You aren't, for example, able to distinguish between the gospel of Luke, Thomas, and Joseph Smith. All you could produce was secondary evidence, but no eyewitness accounts of them receiving or not receiving the divine word. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:56, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: I wasn't referring to the ''technology'' of TV so much as the rapid dissemination of views that it enables. Sure, people talked to other people, but as far as the rapid dissemination of views is concerned, there's a whole order of magnitude of difference. I disagree that physical evidence is generally more useful than corroborated eyewitnesses, although I don't doubt that there are plenty of examples both ways. Short of a comprehensive study on this that we can quote to each other, though, I'd suggest that this is one issue on which the best we can do is anecdotal evidence, non-representative examples, and opinion. Although I can offer an ''expert'' opinion. The former Chief Magistrate of [[New South Wales]] referred to eyewitness testimony as "the best testimony of all", and said that "Lawyers all know the value of witnesses who corroborate each other." (See link below.)
: I have made up my mind on whether the past is falsifiable, and explained that in my previous post. Scientific falsifiability does not use eyewitnesses. It uses repeatable tests. If scientist A proposes that reaction B produces product C, and person D says "I saw that happen once", that is not science. To be science, someone must cause reaction B and see if it produces product C, and other scientists do the same (repeatability) to check the results. You seem to be calling ''all'' research and information gathering 'science'. Science is a specific field of endeavour, not a word that covers everything. Tests require logic, but logic doesn't require tests, so they are not the same thing.
: I've already answered about eyewitnesses to the eyewitnesses, but I'll add that you don't need eyewitnesses to the eyewitnesses. Nobody expects that. You need (a) eyewitnesses, (b) corroboration (i.e. more than one eyewitness), and (c) credibility, which can be determined in a number of ways. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4994 here] for a discussion on this, not exactly to do with your questions about the gospels, but close.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, we do not only have to rely on anecdotal evidence, there have been studies into false testimonies, false memories, and how and when they happen. And that the TV is a different medium doesn't matter for our case. The problem is not the speed, but the fact that witnesses talk to people, and all of your eyewitness reports were written and edited way after the event, so quite some time to talk to other people. But agreed this game of finding site is a bit cumbersome. You can keeping quoting the creationweb, but I can as easily point you to say Bishop Spong. As I said in the beginning, I see litle use in repeating the apologist arguments of the last 2000 years. That they exist is sufficient proof for me that your view isn't the only valid one.

You really stick to this idea that you cannot make a scientific theory about the past. The big bang theory might be wrong but it predicted fairly accurately background radiation which can be measured now. The theory that there was significant trade in Europe way before the Romans, might be wrong, but is supported by archaeological evidence, which can be dug up now. The theory that certain Indian tribes in the US are offspring of Jews, led to the prediction that you should find genetic traces, and that theory has been proven to be wrong by genetic analysis in the present. There is still nothing that keep science from making statements about the past. Your view of science is that it has to take place in a lab, but most science doesn't.

But lets stick to your testability criterion for a while, since as I said I don't want to convince you that I am right, but to concinve you that you might be wrong. Can you give me a repeatable test that we could run to distinguish between the authenticity of the gospels of Luke, Thomas and Joseph Smith? [[User:Order|Order]] 10:48, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: If you pointed me to Spong, I'd probably show you where he was wrong, because he is about so much. ''What'' apologist arguments for the last 2000 years? For most of the last 2000 years the church (the apologists) argued essentially what I've been arguing.
: The claim that the Big Bang idea accurately predicted the background radiation is nowhere near as clearcut as your comment would imply[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4678/]. I've already said (in other conversations if not this one) that science can be ''useful'' in studying history; by testing some details of the historical claims, but that it cannot test for the actual events themselves occurring. So I accept the archaeological evidence example, and the DNA example too, for that matter. But aren't DNA tests done in a lab?
: Repeatable testing is part of the scientific method, which I've said can't be used on past events, such as the writing of the books you mentioned, so I don't see why you would ask me for such tests of them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Of course you would like to show where Spong is wrong, but even if he is wrong, that won't make your position right. You might be more inclined to accept the work of the Creation Study Group of the Presbyterian Church, in particular their observation that different views and interpretation go back to eve before Christ.

Thanks for pointing me to a creation website trying to prove a scientific theory to be wrong. You quoting it proves that even you believe that this scientific position is falsifiable. Which cannot be said, by your admission, about your interpretation of the scripture. I did ask you to come up with a test, because you ask this from people who disagree with you. If you criticize theories about the past for not being testable, you better make sure that you own theories are testable. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:11, 21 December 2007 (EST)
: I never claimed that Spong being wrong would make me right. But him being wrong means that your argument that you could use him to counter my points fails.
: The Study Group didn't show what you claim it to show. It did show that (a) a ''few'' early people argued for non-literal days, and (b) more do in recent times. On the whole, however, what I said is true (emphasis added): "For ''most'' of the last 2000 years the church (the apologists) argued ''essentially'' what I've been arguing."
: Some specific details of the Big Bang idea are falsifiable even though the overall concept is not. So there's no inconsistency there.
: I don't criticise theories about the past for not being testable. I criticise ''the idea'' that they ''are'' testable when they are not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, I could still use some of the arguments Spong puts forward, for example that the gospel were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion. So even though there was no TV, there was ample of time to taint any eyewitness reports. We do not even know if the writers were eyewitnesses. And the different gospels do differ on details. I assume that you have a good excuse for these differences, under your interpretation, and Spong has a different interpretation. Problem is, you still haven't provided a test how to distinguish between canonical, and non-canonical gospels, or say the gospel of Joseph Smith, or between your and Spong's interpretation.

The "few" people in mentioned by the creation study group were not the least scholars. But, since we are at it. Do you have proof that most people did argue your way? Can you produce a poll?

So, if it is not falsifiable, why did you bother to make an attempt to falsify? You are probably still claiming that the big bang theory is not testable, because we cannot go back in time? Or are there any other part on the big bang theory that are not testable? Do you have a testable alternative? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:41, 29 December 2007 (EST)

===Legitimate views===
:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.
::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]
::: Oh, where, pray tell, is it "incorrect"? It does tell us how they were made; by God's Word. I agree that it doesn't go into a lot of detail, but the question was whether or not it was incorrect. It does say, in general terms, how many of the rocks were made—by a global flood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::That they were made by his word, only tells you that it happened. With eyewitness accounts you typically require them to very specific on details that can be checked independently. What does Genesis say about the geology of the moon? Geology of the sun? Geology of earth? Can you give an eyewitness account of the sedimentation during the flood, and an eyewitness account of the formation of coal layers? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::: I've already agreed, twice I think, that the Bible doesn't go into scientific detail on these things, and is in that sense not a science book. Rather, I'm simply claiming that on the things that it ''does'' say, it is accurate. However, your question about more detail about God creating by His Word presupposes that there is more detail to tell. What if that is a full and complete statement? How do you know that it isn't? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::We know that you believe that it is accurate in all details. I am really reluctant to go into those details, not because I can't google, but because I think you should google yourself if you want. But of course there is more detail to tell. You insist on eyewitness accounts. So, imagine what you would ask an eyewitness? A soon as something exists you can start questions to your eyewitness. If your eyewitness tell you that there was a moon, he should be at least be able to tell the color, shape and phase. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::: No doubt he could, but as the human eyewitnesses are long dead, they can no longer be asked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Actually there were never human eyewitnesses to creation, if we look at it literal. Adam wasn't created yet. But as said, this kind of apologist arguments are intellectually challenging, but I consider them other than that rather pointless. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: God witnessed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Just repeating it doesn't make an argument better. As said I am quite happy to continue this discussion, even though I am certain that you will not run out of arguments to counter my arguments, but I am equally certain that I can keep this apologetic ping pong going as well. What I still cannot fully grasp why you need to want to prove so badly that all other interpretations are wrong? If you your interpretation is right, it remains right, no matter what Augustine thought about it. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: I'm not repeating it to make it better, but to remind you of something that you appear to have forgotten or overlooked. If God witnessed it (as He must, because He is omniscient), then there ''was'' an eyewitness. That there were no ''human'' eyewitnesses is artificially restricting the possibilities. I "want to prove ... that all other interpretations are wrong" because I believe that they ''are'' wrong, and want the truth to be known, and because the incorrect ideas are undermining efforts to evangelise. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Problem is that we only have human accounts about what the non-human eyewitness account might have been. Furthermore, your view is based on quite a few assumptions, which is fine when talking religion. But when you claim it is science, you will have to accept that scientist drop some of the assumptions to see if the same couldn't be explained without. That's part of Occam's Razor. If you bring you faith based account to the dissection table of science, don't be surprised if it gets dissected. But, it is good to know that you want to disprove any other account, because you want to evangelize. This way of evangelism exactly what St Augustine warned against, but we already know that you don't think too highly of him. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
: Those "human accounts" have been overseen by the ultimate author, God, to ensure that they are accurate.
: Yes, my view, like ''all'' views, are based on assumptions. Scientists don't drop assumptions; they replace assumptions with new assumptions. Yes, science itself is based on assumptions also.
: Occam's Razor favours creationism.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5096/]
: My "faith-based account" is the account of the omniscient God, so I will expect true science to confirm it (where it is able to speak to it at all). I have no fear of science, only of the anti-science musings of atheists who claims their ideology-based ideas are objective science. If Augustine really did "warn" against "[demolishing] arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" {{bible ref|2_Corinthians|10|4–5}}, then he was going against the Bible. But perhaps you have misrepresented him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
You don't have any eyewitness accounts of the overseeing. If you watch the writers of the gospels, and the writers of the non-canonical gospels, how could your eyewitness tell the difference?

The paper on Occams razor mentions halfway that evolution is random. Its not.

Scientists do drop assumptions. Take as example euclidean geometry. This century, scientist wondered what would happen if you drop some of Euclid assumptions, and they found non-euclidean geometries that work as well, and even describe this universe better.

I am not exactly sure if Augustine was arguing against {{bible ref|2_Corinthians|10|4–5}}, I suspect that he was more arguing along the line of what is still known in the catholic church as "truth cannot contradict truth", which means that it is not the bible that is wrong, nor scientific fact that are wrong, but our understanding of either science or bible. What Augustine said on the subject was the following:
<blockquote>''Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'' (See also [[St._Augustine| here]])
</blockquote>
I assume that this shows that there is more than one legitimate view. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:51, 15 December 2007 (EST)
: That God oversaw the human writers is, I guess, an article of faith, but supported by the accuracy and consistency of the gospel accounts, something that is absent from the non-canonical books.
: I've dealt above with your claim that evolution is not random. It is, because it lacks design, by definition. So my claim that Occam's Razor favours creation stands.
: Do the non-euclidean geometries have no new assumptions associated with them? What were the assumptions dropped?
: Okay, so Augustine wasn't going against 2 Corinthians 10:4-5. It was the other possibility that I suggested: that you misrepresented him. In the passage you quoted, he is arguing against Christians trying to defend ''incorrect'' views by quoting the Bible. He specifically calls these people "reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture" and says that they are "talking nonsense". There's nothing there about "more than one legitimate view" and nothing against trying to disprove anti-biblical accounts.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:11, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Before you claimed that inconsistencies were to a change in style by a single author? And now you claim that everything is consistent. Can you make up your mind with respect to alleged inconsistencies? Furthermore, a study of inconsistencies is by definition no eyewitness account, but secondary, circumstantial evidence. Given that you resort to secondary evidence, I assume that you do not have eyewitness accounts of the writers writing?

You didn't dealt with the fact that evolution is random. You confused the different meanings of the word random. And the random that allow for probabilities to be computed, is not the opposite of design. On one hand side randomness can be a design choice, see you wifi adapter, and selection is not random at all, kind of by definition.

No the new non-euclidean geometries do not have new assumptions.

Augustine very accurately describes the situation we are in, there is no misrepresentation. Of course you claim to be one of the "wiser brethren", but Augustine fairly clearly defined what he means by ''incorrect'' biblical views; he defines them with respect to what even "non-Christians" know about the universe, and not with respect to biblical scholarship. The individuals that Augustine criticizes are very clearly also convinced that they are right for the right reasons, just like you, but Augustine doesn't talk about that, but about the impression that this behavior makes on the non-believers, especially if it might appear as if they do not understand "the things about which they make assertion." While you can tell us that it perfectly reasonable to you, you are not in a situation to determine what non-believers think about your argument, and what impression they get from you argument. Augustine very clearly stated that when it comes to science they should make a considerate argument, but he uses much more forceful language than we are use to. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:55, 16 December 2007 (EST)
: I'm talking about two different sorts of consistency. The first is consistency of language, such as what word is used for God. The second is the consistency of the message throughout the Bible. The message is consistent, although the language used to convey that message is not. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
: I'm not sure of your point about eyewitnesses to the eyewitnesses.
: Selection is not random, but as I have now elaborated on, no designer means that you have randomness in the statistical sense. I have already pointed out that a designer can use (pseudo-)randomness, but no designer means that you cannot have design, only randomness.
: No, Augustine did ''not'' define "incorrect biblical views" as ones contrary to what non-Christians know about the universe. He was particularly having a go at the subset of Christians who have ''clearly'' incorrect views that they are trying to defend biblically. Yes, the ones that he criticises believe that they are correct, but how many people make claims that they believe are not correct? You believe that you are correct in your comments to me. That they believed they were correct is not the issue.
: Yes, Augustine is concerned about the impression that people will get in being told what they know to be correct is not correct, but he's not saying that people should not try to correct ''incorrect'' ideas.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:40, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Augustine says "talking nonsense about these topics", and the the word "these topics" refers to "the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions" etc. We both get what he means, especially when it comes to his concern about the impression on others.

The biblical account is indeed consistent on a higher level, different from the literal meaning, under your translation and interpretation. We can easily agree on that.

I asked you above to give an example where lack of purpose, implies a uniform distribution. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: Yes, Augustine was talking about people "talking nonsense" about things such as you listed, or anything that non-Christians could easily see for themselves. But there's two points to note. First, he wasn't saying that every Christian who has views different to non-Christians is "talking nonsense"; he was only criticising the ones who ''were'' talking nonsense. To put me in that category you have to show that I'm talking nonsense, not that I'm taking a view that you disagree with. Second, he was talking about things that the non-Christians could clearly see for themselves. He wasn't talking about the distant past, which they couldn't see.
: The biblical creation account is also consistent on a literal level.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Using your literal interpretation it might. And when it comes to astronomy, scientists can actually look in the past, that thats a different issue. And don't tell me that they observe it in the present, because the creation account, also happened in the past, was written is the past, and the only thing you can do is read it in the present. Your island of refuge is that the past is the past. That is a very small island.

Of course you do think to be one of the wiser brethren. Otherwise you wouldn't defend you position. But Augustine statement is a warning, and as with any warning one should try to assess if the warning applies to oneself. I might make factual mistakes in my arguments, but even if I did, I do not use the scripture to defend my position, so his warning doesn't really apply to me. Whether it applies to you, you may decide for yourself. Your argument is that it does only not apply to you, because you are right on the scientific part. If that is true, you are set. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:14, 18 December 2007 (EST)
:"''Using your literal interpretation it might.''": Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? You seemed to be suggesting that it ''wasn't'', although perhaps I misunderstood you.
: I'm not following your point about astronomy. I would say that we observe it in the present, and I do agree that the creation account was written in the past and that we read it in the present. And that's the point, that we see these things ''in the present'', and we cannot observe the past. Astronomy is a bit of a special case, though.
: I guess that it depends on what you mean by "wiser brethren". You must be too, by your definition, as you too are defending your position. Which begs the question, though, wiser than who?
: I'm not suggesting that Augustine's warning applies to you, because he was talking about Christians (do you consider yourself one?). I maintain that it doesn't apply to me (on this issue) for two reasons, although they likely boil down to the same reason: One, that he is talking about observations in the ''present'', not accounts of events in the past as we are discussing, and the other because he is talking about "nonsense", contrasted with things that non-Christians know to be "certain from reason and experience". You don't know that the secular view of origins is true ''from experience'', nor from formal logic (which is what, I suggest, he is referring to by "reason"). Instead, the secular view that you hold to is based on (materialistic/naturalistic) ''ideology''.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)
My point always was that there are apologist who are able to argue either way. From the very beginning I was hammering that it might be right under your interpretation.

So, if you can only read the scripture in the present, how do make any statement about the past, e.g. when the scripture was written. Or should I say allegedly written, because you seem to claim that you cannot say nothing certain about the past.

When it come to theories about the present, you discount quite a few theories about the present, most notably that selection is random. Or that purpose implies randomness, for which you haven't even found a single instance, let alone a convincing argument for the general claim. Or that you cannot make falsifiable claims about the past. And we know that you think that you are right, and you are indeed of the hook, if you are right about all of your various scientific statements that you made.

Not sure why you keep arguing against my alleged position. As said before, I asked you to defend your position, not make up a position that I might have and attack it. And with your tight eyewitness standard, and insistence that you can only make falsifiable claims about the present, you kind of got rid of all possible evidence you might have to support you claims, just because you hoped it would undermine my position that you don't know. But to shed some light on my view on the matter, this little anecdote. Earlier today I read an article explaining that the scientific explanation for the origin of the moon might have to be changed due to new evidence. Especially the time when the moon formed. I read the article, and once I was done I thought to myself, that it is interesting to know, but that this probably not the last word on the subject. And I amended my previous held belief with the new information in less than three seconds, mostly because the origin of the moon doesn't affect any of my core beliefs. See I got no problem with the fact that scientific theories can be wrong or change. That they are wrong doesn't make your explanation right. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: Just because you can't ''scientifically test'' past events doesn't mean that you can't "make any statements about the past". There are other sources than scientific tests. You can, for example, look at the language used (vocabulary, idioms, etc.) and see when that language was used to see when it was written. This is not absolute like a scientific test would be, but neither does it mean that you have no idea. Depending on what evidence is available, you can often come to reasonably certain conclusions.
: I didn't deny that natural selection is non-random. I said that if natural selection wasn't designed, then it must be random. However the evidence is that it's non-random, which means that it was designed.
: I'm not making up a position that you might have. I'm responding to claims that you are making.
: "''I amended my previous held belief with the new information in less than three seconds, mostly because '''the origin of the moon doesn't affect any of my core beliefs.'''''" (emphasis added) Exactly. The same applies to me. But if it did?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 21 December 2007 (EST)
So, you won't care much if it turned out that the moon was 30 million years older than you previously thought? Interesting.

Selection is not-random, but there are two problems with you suggestion that it therefore must have been designed. First, you still haven't given a single example where lack of purpose, leads necessarily to randomness. Second, that selection is not random, is not a matter of design, but a matter of the definition of selection. Selection refers to the observation that the frequency of genetic traits that lead to a better adaptation of the phenotype to the environment will increase in the gene pool over time. If you however argue instead that someone/something is steering the selection, then that is akin to advocating a version of theistic evolution. Not sure, if that is your aim, but theistic evolution entails that evolutions works.

Looking at language, vocabulary, idioms, etc is science, but we already know that you stick to a very limited view of science. Essentially, you want to use all the tools and techniques commonly used in science for yourself, to get from the evidence to "reasonably certain conclusions". But you don't want scientists to use the same tools and methods to get to reasonably certain conclusion? Using your own standard, you too will have to admit that you never heard a native speaker of old semitic languages such as Aramaic, but of course you won't hold this against yourself, only against scholars that disagree with you. It seems like you feel the need to measure with two measures to be able to defend your position. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:43, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:I'm not sure exactly what was in my mind with my comment about the moon. But it was probably that the precise details could change, just as with you. But no, if the claim about the moon's age increased by 30 million years, it wouldn't change much: both the old and new figures would be wrong. But more to the point, ''any'' such date is based on assumptions that I would reject. But you didn't answer my equivalent question to you. I asked what if a new age ''did'' affect your core beliefs. I'll refine the question further in light or your question to me. What if new evidence showed it to be 6,000 years old?
: "''Selection refers to the observation that the frequency of genetic traits that lead to a better adaptation of the phenotype to the environment will increase in the gene pool over time.''": Yes, but why is this the way it happens? Was this selection process designed or did it occur by chance? Your argument is based on the assumption that this process came into being by chance. No, I'm not proposing theistic evolution. I'm proposing theistic ''creation'' (not that there can really be any other kind).
: I don't have a very limited view of science, but I don't credit it with being able to perform miracles (e.g. test something that is not available to test).
: I ''do'' want people to use all the same tools to get to reasonably certain conclusions. But those tools include using reliable historical documents such as the Bible, instead of ''a priori'' excluding them for philosophical reasons, then claiming that as 'science'.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:36, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Sorry if I'm interrupting something, but I'm going to clarify Order's earlier statement about non-Euclidean geometries. In non-Euclidean geometries, the dropped assumption is Euclid's fifth postulate. See [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html Mathworld] for more information. [[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 13:17, 29 December 2007 (EST)
If the moon would be only 6000 years old? It would depend on how the moon got there, but it would be interesting. Depending on how hit got there, I would have to change my world views, but I'd figure that there would be little reason to argue with a fact once it is established as a fact.

It doesn't really matter why selection happens. In nature we have that the environment determines which phenotypes have the best reproductive chances, and the phenotype is determined to a significant extend by the genotype. The principle of evolution then predicts that in the next generation the share of those genotypes increases, that lead to fitter phenotypes. And it is not random at all, and it doesn't matter if the selective pressure is natural or man made.

Suppose someone has a golden staph infection. Assume further that about 1% of the golden staph bacteria has the genetic trait to be resistant to methicillin. If the infected person gets treated with methicillin, the number of golden staph bacteria will first decrease sharply, and then increase again. If selection were random, then after the treatment with meticillin 1% of the bacteria should be resistant to it, and 99% shouldn't. That is your claim. The common theory of evolution however predicts that significantly more than 1% of bacteria after a meticilin treatment will carry the genotype for meticillin resistance. This is a simple test to determine if your statement that selection is random is true or the statement that it is not. And without doing this test, I belive that it will be more than 1%.

But I am curious what you mean when you say that selection didn't occur naturally? What is the role of your deity in this? Can you give a bit more details?

If you want the bible to be considered a reliable source for science, you should start by giving us a test to distinguish between the gospels of Luke, Thomas, and Joseph Smith. You should have testable evidence that the creation account is an eyewitness account. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

===Motivations===
:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.
:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''": Which scientists are you talking about? In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive. That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 4 December 2007 (EST)
::This is kind of absurd. Atheists really do not believe that the bible is the infallible word of god. They think that it is a myth. And none of their findings contradicts this view. And when it comes to Christian Old Earthers, they also do not discover anything that contradict an old earth interpretation. All that they do is propose theories that contradict your views. But you assume that they do it for some ulterior motive, propose something that they know is wrong, just to discredit god. Why is is so difficult to accept that people who do not share your belief can have good intentions? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:02, 4 December 2007 (EST)
::: I didn't say that the atheists ''believed'' it, rather, the opposite, that their views contradict their "reading" of it. That is, just like me, when the Bible says that God made the world in six days, they believe that it means six ordinary days. We both agree on that. What we disagree on is whether or not that is correct. I believe that it is; they believe that it isn't. In contrast, the old-Earth creationists believe that the "six days" is wrong, so "interpret" the "six days" to mean "millions of years" so that they can thereby continue to think that the Bible is correct. I'm not impugning their intentions; I'm criticising their presumptions and methods. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::Except for your insistence on eyewitness I see little criticism of scientific methods in your argument, but a lot of criticism of their intentions. You repeatedly said that scientist do not accept a theory because they think that it is consistent with the observed facts, but because of their desire to debunk the bible. If instead your aim is to criticize the scientific method rather than scientists, we should wrap this discussion up and take it to the article on the scientific method. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::::: I have no criticism of the scientific method. It's a great method for studying things ''in the present''. I'm criticising their pronouncements about ''unobserved'' things ''in the past'' where there were no witnesses, and where the scientific method of observation, testing, measuring, and repeatability are not applicable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::The scientific method does not restrict yourself to things in the present. You propose an explanation and you look for supporting or conflicting evidence. Things that happen in the past leave traces in the present. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
::::::: If it doesn't restrict itself to things in the present, how does it observe, measure, test, etc. those things? I'm not suggesting that past events are totally off limits to science. Science can be used to throw some light on past events. But no more than that. For example, showing that scales can easily be transformed into feathers is something that science could (hypothetically) do, and if this happened, it would considerably strengthen the case for reptile-to-bird evolution, but it would still not scientifically demonstrate that this actually happened, and there is still no way that science could observe, measure, test, or replicate the past event. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::It seems like your view of science is that of people who write down observations, and that's it. But that is just a very little part of it. Scientists come up with explanations, look for observations that confirm or contradict the explanations. And at some point, it is called a theory. And sometimes a theory gets a complete overhaul, and that is then called a paradigm shift. And you can make theories about the past, and then predict what you should find in the present. There is no need to replicate the actual event in the past, there is only need to be able to replicate the measurements in the present, that support a theory about the past. As an aside, you repeated the comment about scales evolving into feather numerous times, and I didn't comment before, but just to let you know, you comment shows an incomplete understanding of the theory of evolution. At no time did something evolve that had no purpose other than that it would be useful in the future. This kind of reasoning would be either teleological or lamarickism. The scales/feathers were always functional parts of a complete animal. But this is an aside, and I won't discuss it. This is something for the talk on ToE. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: My "view of science" that I've put is a rather simplified version, and I basically agree with the expanded description that you've provided. As I've just posted above, predictions can be made on the creationist model, and have been, successfully. So does that mean that the creationist model has been "proved"? The point is that although these predictions and tests can be used to ''support'' an idea, they are basically circumstantial, as you can't really rule out that there might be a different explanation for the phenomenon that you successfully predicted. And you can't test the past event itself, just the predictions that you make from it. I fail to see your point about the scales evolving into feathers. I agree that, according to evolution, it had to be useful at each step, but I don't see how that means that I have an incomplete understanding of evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::It seems like we are getting on page when it comes to what science entails. If you want discuss what part of you understanding is incomplete, e.g. what kind of transitions you should expect, we should relocate to ToE, and sort it out on that page. But this talk for moon isn't the appropriate place to sort it out. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::: Or we could take it to my talk page or yours, or e-mail... I don't care where. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Philip (and Order), while not directly relating to this subject, I see that you are interested in the Bible and in knowing what other people think. I suggest you go to www.vatican.va : it is a wealth of information. While I understand people may not like Catholicism or the Pope, Catholic Church is not only about the Pope. Centuries of theologians and christian scientists (just consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) have studied both the Bible and the World around us, and they have accumulated an incredible wealth of knowledge, even if both non Catholic Christians and Atheists obviously disagree with some of their conclusions. It is really worth, for everybody. I don't dispute that some Christians prefer to read the Bible by themselves, but reading what others have done with passion for years can't be bad, can it? And no, I am not taking a stance in this diatribe between you and [[User:Order|Order]].[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:58, 4 December 2007 (EST)
: Whilst I appreciate your intentions and tone, what you've done is known as "elephant hurling", in referring to an entire website to make a point. If you want to link to a specific article on that site, I'll have a look at it, but otherwise I'm not going to bother. And for the record, I'm basing what I'm saying not just on my own reading of the Bible, but on that of many others who have studied this issue in great detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:: Oh Philip, you completely misunderstood my post (my fault, no doubt). I was NOT making a point and I WON'T touch this dispute between you and Order with a pole. I am not talking about the [[Pope]]'s views on [[Evolution]]. Besides, many of those who argue for evolution cite Catholic writings wrongly. Their position is not of blind acceptance of evolution, as Mr. Schlafly pointed out well a couple of days ago in his Talk Page. BUT this was NOT my point. Let me try to be more clear this time: Philip, from what I read here, you come across as someone who is open minded and willing to learn, and thus I give you a FRIENDLY suggestion, to help you fight against atheists, if you prefer. While you are not Catholic and disagree with much of what they preach, they have also studied the Bible and Sciences to an INCREDIBLE detail, starting from the first Pope, [[Saint Peter]], up to today, with hundreds of theologic universities and some very highly regarded institutions, such as the "Pontifical Academy of Sciences" I mentioned. Highly regarded by Catholics, Protestants, Fundamentalists and Atheists as well. I am pretty confident that you will find much material to be of GREAT USE FOR YOU. Probably you will agree with 99 % of that material and certainly, as learned as you may be, you will learn many valuable facts. I mean, why go the same route, if you can just read what others have concluded and reached, and then disagree or go forward yourself? Finally, while I am guilty of giving a generic home page, www.vatican.va is very well structured and quite easy to navigate. I didn't give a direct link to their evolution pages, because I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION OR THE MOON. Maybe I should have posted these suggestions to your talk page instead of here. I posted here only because either you or Order mentioned the Vatican here, and it came to my mind that I could be helpful. Sorry for using CAPITALS, I am not shouting :-) P.S. If you have specific points about the Catholic Church you want to discuss, I am not the right person, but our Joaquin Martinez seems to be very instructed in the matter. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:14, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::P.P.S. I know you are basing your views on not only your reading of the Bible, but on the views of many who have studied the Bible in great detail. AND I RESPECT YOUR VIEWS. While I may not agree with you 100 % (or even less with Order), I am not talking about your views, especially about your views on Evolution. I am just giving a friendly suggestion, that I feel would make you stronger in all your fights, even in your fight for a Young Earth - after all, all Catholics were YEC for centuries, most probably are now, and even the most pro-evolution catholic views that some who believe in Evolution (mostly probably Atheists) cite are taken out of context, "quote mining" (?). So you will find many many texts that strengthen your positions. You can't deny, can you, that the studies of all the Creationist, Fundamentalist, Protestant, Baptist, ecc.ecc. institutions, scholars and students pale in comparison with millennia of Catholic knowledge, both in quantity and quality. Which doesn't mean that catholic ideas cannot be wrong. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:25, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::Me again... Just to be still more offtopic (ironic, seeing what I wrote below: "This article is about the moon"). I feel that many Churches, wishing to differentiate from the Catholic Church, purposedly avoid to use Catholic material. "Read the Bible by yourself" seems to be a common stance, which I appreciate and understand. But, in my opinion, all Catholic knowledge shouldn't be rejected. Instead, it should be studied, used, and argued against if necessary. Catholics and other Churches are on the same boat in this increasingly atheist and possibly satanic world. I very much appreciate Mr. Schlafly, who is not Catholic (is he?), but still uses the words of the first Pope and of the Catholic Church to strengthen his points. And this is the last from me for now ;-) [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:32, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::: All fair points, and thank you. I apologise for not properly understanding what you were getting at. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:02, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::I don't want to drag you into this discussions, but I have the impression that my alleged position is confused with my actual position. I'll briefly summarize two of my positons, but there is no need to react. I don't blame anybody if he mistook my positions, because this a somewhat confusing discussion.
:::*First, when I talked about Humani Generis I summarized said that the Catholic Chruch allows Catholics to develop their own opinion on evolution, as long as they believe in a single Adam, and that souls are god given. I think that this is a fair characterization of the Catholic position.
:::*Second, I am still not trying to convince Philip that his position is wrong. I try to convince him and others that people who disagree with him might be factually wrong, but that they aren't therefore morally wrong. I believe that most of them mean well, even if you disagree with them.
:::[[User:Order|Order]] 08:07, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::: If you weren't tyring to convince me that my position was wrong, you wouldn't be disagreeing with so much that I say. You may not be trying to convince me that I'm wrong about 6-day creation, but you are trying to convince me that I'm wrong about 6-day creation being the only correct biblical view to have. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:02, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::::My disagreement was with your claim that anything but YEC is motivated by the desire to promote atheism. I don't think so. And I already told you in my first statement on this matter that I don't feel like debunking the 6-day interpretation, because we all know the arguments for and against. I said "There have been books been written by apologists about why these are not inconsistencies and absurdities. And the apologists might even be right". I don't want you accept alternative views, but to accept that people can have alternative views, for legitimate reasons with good intentions. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: As I hope I've clarified above, attempts to harmonise the Bible with long ages is not motivated by a desire to promote atheism, even though the long ages themselves were atheistic in origin. I do accept that people can have alternative views with good intentions, but not that these reasons are legitimate. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::Lets not argue about the word "legitimate", as long as we are aware of the difference between factually wrong and morally wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== This article is about the Moon ==

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

:No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually ''devolved'', which ''is'' possible! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== Lack of falsifiabilty ==

Teddy added that atheistic theories of the origin of the moon lack "the falsifiability requirement of science" to the sentence that says that they have been proved false. If there were not falsifiable, then they could not be proven false.

I could accept that the sentence expresses something close to the truth, but as it is currently worded it contradicts itself.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Perfect Artistic Symmetry ==

'''''The Moon appears from the Earth to be the same size as the sun, in perfect artistic symmetry, unlike any known other planet-moon system in the entire universe.'''''

*Why is this sentence '''bold''' and in ''italics''? Is it a quoted headline?
*The apparent size of the [[Sun]] is 31.6′ – 32.7′, the apparent size of the [[Moon]] 29.3′ – 34.1′ . What's ''perfect'' about this?
*And what's artistic?
*As no moon is known yet outside the solar system, the claim ''unlike any known other planet-moon system in the entire universe'' is just hyperbole.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

: The symmetry is as perfect to the observer as other great works of art are. Does the perfect art in the Mona Lisa suggest a superb painter or a random cause? The former. Ditto for the sun-moon symmetry. Saying that artistic result occurred by chance simply isn't plausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:49, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
::This discussion reminds me of Giotto. When the Pope Nicholas IV asked him to demonstrate he was as great an artist as he was supposed to be, Giotto drew a perfect circle. ''Perfect.'' [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 01:29, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== Rate of Recession ==

Aschlafly, you repeat your claims from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|here]], i.e., that an age of 4.6 billion years ''is contradicted by an extrapolation backwards in time using its observed rate of recession''. Again, you fail to back up your claim with a source, a calculation/estimation or a simulation.
If you find one, could you answer my [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Questionable Probabilities|questions]]?
Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:09, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:I commented the section out, as the ''extrapolation backwards'' isn't shown: two weeks should have been enough to come up with some calculation/estimation. As I have shown [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Receding_Moon|here]], the ''extrapolation backwards'' doesn't lead to a contradiction.
:[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

:: There is less discussion of this in universities than there should be, because quickly it leads to the conclusion of a young earth-moon model. Tides are not the only problem with extrapolating backwards. The moon's orbit itself is unstable, and it wouldn't take much extrapolation backwards before it becomes impossible to fast-forward to what the moon is doing now. For example, extrapolate back far enough and the moon would be drifting towards the earth, not away as currently observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Cell division

2010-07-22T03:56:19Z

JacobB:

'''Cell division''' is the method by which [[cell]]s reproduce themselves.

In [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] cells, the chromosomes are separated by a process called mitosis before the division (cytokinesis) of the cell.

[[Category: Biology]]

Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging

2010-07-22T03:46:39Z

JacobB:

Should this have a brief explanation of how it works? (neutron spin allignment and excitation by radio waves to flip the spins from the metastable anti-parallel state to the stable parallel one and all that jazz?)[[User:Keysersoze|Keysersoze]] 23:23, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
:Um.... sure? Try and keep it simple and as non-technical as you can. How can somebody know so much about medical imaging and not know that mitosis occurs in animals? kidding, kidding! yeah go ahead and write up a ''brief'' explanation. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Cell division

2010-07-22T03:45:17Z

JacobB:

I thought mitosis was only in plants
:It refers to the division of any eukaryotic cell. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:45, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Paracelsus

2010-07-22T02:11:11Z

JacobB: removed self-link

Aureolus Phillip Theophrastus von Hohenheim, called '''Paracelsus''', (1493 – 1541) was a [[Swiss]] alchemist, [[physician]], [[philosopher]] and astrologer. He was a pioneer using chemicals and minerals in [[medicine]]. He is often associated with the idea that ''the dose makes the poison''.

* "All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…."[http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html Yale University]

== See also ==

*[[Francis Bacon]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/paracelsus/paracelsus_2.html PARACELSUS AND THE MEDICAL REVOLUTION OF THE RENAISSANCE]
*[http://www.paracelsus.unizh.ch/ The Zurich Paracelsus Project]
*[http://www.paracelsus-center.ch/en/ Paracelsus]

[[Category:Scientists]]

Wikipedia

2010-07-22T01:55:22Z

JacobB: Reverted edits by Keller (Talk) to last revision by TK

[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]

'''Wikipedia''' is a online [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK)<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>, teenagers and unemployed persons. In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote| "An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}
The project was initiated by two [[atheism|atheists]]: [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10360&view=findpost&p=36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense [[group-think]] Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm Article: Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Gulf of Mexico oil spill

2010-07-22T01:17:50Z

JacobB:

[[File:Dispersants spraying.jpg|right|300px|thumb|President Obama directed the [[United States Coast Guard]] to dump [[toxic]] disperants into the [[Gulf of Mexico]] despite known health hazards to humans and wildlife. [http://www.oilspillupdates.com/oil-spill-videos/obama-oil-spill-bill-on-bp-chem-spray-to-save-nature/http://www.oilspillupdates.com/oil-spill-videos/obama-oil-spill-bill-on-bp-chem-spray-to-save-nature/] ]]The '''Gulf of Mexico oil spill''' began on 20 April 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil drilling rig operated by [[BP]] (known as British Petroleum until 2000) exploded and sank.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/gulf-of-mexico-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-2010-4 Here's The Questions You Should Be Asking About The Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill]</ref> Oil began leaking at a rate later estimated at 2.5 million gallons per day, resulting in massive environmental degradation.<ref>[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSaoIddZwUtk-BTcIDuy6AjaHwSgD9GBV0GO0 Scientists: Oil leaking up to 2.52M gallons daily]</ref> The blowout also killed eleven workers. Despite the known [[toxic]]ity of the dispersant Corexit, the [[Obama administration]] dumped millions of gallons of the hazardous chemical into the [[Gulf of Mexico]] with C-130 aircraft provided by the [[U.S. Coast Guard]]<ref>http://vodpod.com/watch/3962219-confirmed-corexit-being-sprayed-from-coast-guard-planes</ref>and the [[Air Force]].<ref>http://bpoilslick.blogspot.com/2010/07/us-air-force-sprays-corexit-from-plane.html</ref>

On 31 March 2010 [[President Obama]] announced a plan for exploitation of offshore oil reserves during a speech at Andrews Air Force Base outside [[Washington, D.C.]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/user/AssociatedPress#p/u/6/mA7RAfHN-wo Obama Lifts Ban on Offshore Drilling,] ''[[Associated Press]],'' 31 March 2010. Retrieved from [[Youtube]] 9 May 2010.</ref> The President's actions have been labeled, "a decision to endanger our coastal [[ecosystem]]s with the risk of catastrophic oil spills."<ref>[http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2010/04/30/president_obama_committed_to_endangering President Obama must reinstate moratorium on offshore drilling,] [[Greenpeace]] USA blogs, 30 Apr 2010.</ref> Defending the decision, the President remarked "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced."<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref><ref>Video: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/29/flashback_obama_says_oil_rigs_today_dont_generally_cause_spills.html Obama Says "Oil Rigs Today Don't Generally Cause Spills"], 2 April 2010. Retrieved from RealClearPolitics.com 12 May 2010.</ref>

Since January 2009 the [[Obama administration]] approved 346 oil drilling plans without securing permits required by law from the [[federal]] agency that assesses environmental impacts.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?partner=rss&emc=rss U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits,] Ian Urbina, ''New York Times'', 13 May 2010. Retrieved 28 May 2010.</ref> [[President Barack Obama]] has been widely criticized for an unprepared and bungled response, most notably from former supporters.
 
{{cquote|'''''<big>We're in charge, but BP is responsible.</big>''''' -- '''Barack Obama, news conference of 5/27/2010'''<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/obama-federal-government-charge-oil-spill-response/ Obama news conference, 5/27/10]</ref>}}

As of July 15, BP announced that the gushing well had been successfully capped, although more than half of the oil which had already been spilled remains in the gulf. To avoid a pressure build-up, a relief well will have to be drilled.

==The Obama plan ==
[[File:OCS Eastern Gulf of Mexico Strategy.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Map of expanded areas of offshore oil drilling authorized by President Obama on 31 March 2010.<ref>[http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/04/01/obama-offshore-oil-drilling-details.htm Obama Offshore Oil Drilling Details,] 1 April 2010. Retrieved from About.com Guide to US Government Info 16 May 2010.</ref> ''Source: United States Department of Interior.'']]
Obama called for expanded development and production throughout the [[Gulf of Mexico]]. The [[Department of Interior]]'s [[Minerals Management Service]] (MMS) estimates that the Gulf of Mexico contains 36-41.5 billion barrels of oil and 161-207 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources. According a DOI press release, Obama's plan would "expand oil and gas development and exploration" while "protecting fisheries, [[tourism]], and places off U.S. coasts that are not appropriate for development."<ref>[http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/2010_03_31_release.cfm Department of Interior Press Release,] 31 March 2010.</ref>

The ''[[Associated Press]]'' has reported on the role ex-government regulators play in [[lobby]]ing and influence; the chief of staff of the MSS's Gulf of Mexico region once stated that deep water drilling had "few or no regulations or standards."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/a-2649320~INFLUENCE_GAME__Govt_regulators_hired_by_companies.html INFLUENCE GAME: Govt regulators hired by companies,] Frederic J. Frommer, ''Associated Press'', 26 May 2010. Retrieved from examiner.com 26 May 2010.</ref> Two years later the senior official left his job in the MMS to work for BP.<ref>Ibid.</ref> During President Obama's first year in office, as BP's regulatory compliance and environmental manager, the ex-MMS official lobbied the U.S. Ocean Policy Task Force to "carefully weigh policies that may establish exclusionary zones" or "disrupt the MMS leasing program," according to a statement posted at whitehouse.gov.<ref>Influence Game, Frederic J. Frommer, ''Associated Press'', 26 May 2010.</ref> He further stated that BP wanted access to off-limit areas such as the eastern [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>Ibid.</ref> which President Obama approved in March 2010.

Total U.S. offshore [[crude oil]] production in 2009 was 1.7 million barrels a day, of which 1.6 million barrels a day came from the U.S. section of the Gulf of Mexico.<ref>[http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html Energy Information Administration.]</ref>

According to the ''New York Times'', President Obama "said several times during his [[Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign|presidential campaign]] that he supported expanded offshore drilling. He noted in his [[State of the Union]] address<ref>[http://www.c-span.org/Executive/State-of-the-Union.aspx Barack Obama State of the Union Address 2010]. Retrieved from [[C-SPAN]].org 15 May 2010.</ref> in January [2010] that weaning the country from imported oil would require “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time,] John M. Broder, ''[[New York Times]]'', March 30, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/obama_clears_way_for_oil_drill.html Obama clears way for oil drilling off U.S. coasts], Associated Press, March 31, 2010, Retrieved from nola.com 8 May 2010.</ref>

Nobel Laureate in Economics, Dr. [[Paul Krugman]],<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/ Economics 2008.] Retrieved from Nobel.org 10 May 2010.</ref> who has been highly critical of Obama [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|economic policy]]<ref>[http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090331151429.aspx Krugman Garners Newsweek Cover for Left-Wing Criticism of [[Obamunism|Obamanomics,]] ] Julia A. Seymour, ''Business & Media Institute'', 3/31/09.</ref> in his regular ''New York Times'' column, ''Conscience of a Liberal'' wrote a piece entitled "The oil spill is Obama's fault," and stated "that’s not what I believe....The only question is what the story will be."<ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times '' Op-Ed, 30 April 2010.</ref> When questioned about the Obama regulators "cozy relationship" with oil companies the president responded, "absolutely I take responsibility for that."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gulf-oil-spill Remarks by President Obama on the Gulf Oil Spill,] Office of the Press Secretary, 27 May 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 29 May 2010.</ref>
=== Obama administration asks Court to allow BP drilling in the Gulf of Mexico ===

Less than four months after [[President Barack Obama]] took office a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. found that the U.S. Government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an "irrational" environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling. The Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. In its arguments to the court, the Obama administration said that the loss of royalties on the oil, estimated at almost $10 billion, "may have significant financial consequences for the federal government."

Among the existing leases was the Lease Sale #206. That deal included BP's acquisition, for $34 million, of the acreage encompassing the Deep Water Horizons well.

A day after the administration's petition, the industry's main lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, made its own case echoing the government's arguments. "The significance of [Gulf of Mexico] activities under the five-year program cannot be overstated," the API argued.

Secretary [[Ken Salazar]] expressed confidence that problems within the [[Minerals Management Service]] that led to poor oversight of offshore drilling were resolved. In September 2009, in testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, Salazar listed steps he had taken to make sure problems "don't occur in the future."

In [[Senate]] hearings held in mid-November 2009, Obama MMS Deputy Director Walter Cruickshank assured the Committee panel fears of containing a catastrophic blowout were misplaced, saying the U.S. had "what we believe is the most aggressive oil spill contingency planning...in the world."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704699604575342843359124882.html</ref>

=== Approval of BP's response plan ===
The [[Obama administration]] accepted and approved BP's regional oil spill response plan for the [[Gulf of Mexico]] dated 30 June 2009<ref>[http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1351 Did anyone actually read BP's oil spill response plan?] Walruses and Seals, Non-Existent Equipment Lists and Other Fanciful References, 27 May 2010. Retrieved from peer.org 19 June 2010.</ref> and covered all the company’s operations in the Gulf. The plan lists
:*“Sea Lions, Seals, Sea Otters [and] [[Walrus]]es” as “Sensitive Biological Resources” in the Gulf, suggesting that portions were cribbed from previous [[Arctic]] exploratory planning;
:* Gives a web site for a [[Japan]]ese home shopping site as the link to one of its “primary equipment providers for BP in the Gulf of Mexico Region [for] rapid deployment of spill response resources on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis;” and
:* Directs its media spokespeople to never make “promises that [[property]], [[ecology]], or anything else will be restored to normal.”<ref>http://www.mms.gov/DeepwaterHorizon/BP_Regional_OSRP_Redactedv2.pdf</ref>

The government approved plan made no mention about tracking sub-surface oil plumes from deepwater blowouts or preventing [[disease]] ([[virus]]es, [[bacteria]], etc.) transmission to captured [[animal]]s in rehabilitation facilities.

=== British Petroleum ===
During the first 100 days of the [[Obama administration]], the Minerals Management Service ([[MMS]]) of the [[Department of the Interior]] granted a “categorical exclusion” from a detailed environmental impact statement required under [[law]]<ref>[http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.]</ref> to BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling operation, according to the ''[[Washington Post]].''<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study,] Juliet Eilperin, ''Washington Post,'' 5 May 2010.</ref> BP's exploration plan received in the Administration's MMS field office on 23 March 2009 states "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." It declared any spill would have only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine [[mammal]]s but it was "unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."<ref>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/initial_exploration_plan050410.pdf</ref>

As Senator, and while running for president, [[Barack Obama]] received a total of $77,051 from BP<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/BP?view=detail&siteid=nwhwk</ref> and has taken more money from BP's [[Political Action Committee]] and individuals connected with BP over the past 20 years than any other candidate, according to [[FEC]] disclosure records.<ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0505/obama-biggest-recipient-bp-political-action-money-20-years Obama is biggest recipient of BP’s political action cash in the last 20 years,] John Byrne, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from rawstory.com 9 May 2010.</ref> Likewise, the independent watchdog Center for Responsive Politics noted, "the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself.”<ref>Jake Tapper, Political Punch, [[ABC News]], 5 May 2010. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-idea-that-bp-given-special-exemption-because-of-campaign-cash-to-obama-silly-and-ridiculous.html?cid=6a00d8341c4df253ef0134807669a3970c]</ref><ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/on-thursday-oil-giant-bp.html</ref>
[[File:Bp-obama-logo.jpg|right|225px|thumb|Obama approved drilling permits for BP without the statutory requirement to file an environmental impact assessment,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?partner=rss&emc=rss U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits,] Ian Urbina, ''New York Times'', 13 May 2010.</ref> the handling of spills in a worst-case scenario,<ref>[http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/bp-exempted-05-05-2010.html Interior Department Exempted BP Drilling From Environmental Review]: In Rush to Expand Offshore Oil Drilling, Interior Secretary Salazar Abandoned Pledge to Reform
Industry-dominated Mineral Management Service. Press Release, Center for Biological Diversity, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from www.biologicaldiversity.org, 30 May 2010.</ref> and fostered a cozy relationship between government and the oil industry.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10745153 Govt Regulators Hired by Companies, Influence Game: Drilling regulators move from government to industry through revolving door,] Frederic J. Frommer, ''Associated Press'', 26 May 2010. Retrieved from abcnews.go.com 30 May 2010.</ref> No other candidate took more money from BP in the past two decades than Obama received in only six years.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html Obama biggest recipient of BP cash,] Erika Lovley, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from Politico.com 30 May 2010.</ref>]]
Talk show personality Ed Schultz of [[MSNBC]] reiterated a call for campaign finance reform as a result of Barack Obama's ties to BP and the government's response.<ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100602102656.aspx MSNBC's Schultz Draws Bizarre Connection Between Oil Spill and Campaign Finance Reform.] Alex Fitzsimmons, Media Research Center, 2 June 2010.</ref>

Transocean, owner of the Deepwater Horizons drilling rig leased to BP, was the recipient of the Obama [[Mineral Management Service]]'s, ''Safety Award for Excellence''.<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=66303 Democratic Leader Hoyer Doesn’t Know Whether Obama Administration was Prepared for Oil Spill,] Matt Cover, CNSNews.com, May 20, 2010.</ref><ref>MMS Thought Deepwater Horizon was Award-Winningly SAFE, The Project on Government Oversight, Exposing Government Corruption, 29 April 2010.</ref> On 30 April 2010 Transocean's stock fell after [[President Obama]]’s chief strategist, [[David Axelrod]], made comments nine days into the disaster and the [[government]] raised estimates to more than fives times of what had previously been reported about how much oil was leaking into the [[Gulf of Mexico]].<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-30/transocean-drops-after-axelrod-comments-on-drilling-update2-.html Transocean Drops After Axelrod Comments on Drilling,] Edward Klump, ''Bloomberg Business Week'', 30 April 2010. Retrieved 2 June 2010.</ref>

It has been reported in the [[finance|financial]] press that among owners of BP<ref>[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-aims-at-bp-hits-state-pensions-2010-06-09 President Obama's ramped up rhetoric over the BP oil spill is beginning to have an effect,] ''MarketWatch, 9 June 2010.</ref> are
*New Jersey Division of Investment (51 million shares)
*California Public Employees Retirement System (36 million shares)
*Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System (7.1 million shares)
*Teachers Retirement System of Alabama (4.5 million shares)
*Employees Retirement System of Texas (4.1 million shares)
*Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (1.1 million shares)
*Illinois State Board of Investment (1.1 million shares)<ref>In 1990 Barack Obama took a job with the Law Firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland ([http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/06/nation/na-obamalegal6 Obama's lawyer days: brief and not all civil rights,] Dan Morain, ''Los Angeles Times'' 2008-04-06). Allison S. Davis, a senior partner in the firm, went into business with [[Chicago]] slumlord [[Tony Rezko]]. Davis was appointed to the Illinois State Board of Investment by Governor [[Rod Blagojevich]] at Rezko's request in 2003. ([http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/644511 How reform-minded City Hall critic became a cozy insider,] Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', 2007-11-11).</ref>
*Indiana Public Employees' Retirement Fund (0.7 million shares)
*Washington State Investment Board (1.2 million shares)
*United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (21.9 million shares).

BP was found [[Negligence|wilfully negligent]] during the [[Bush administration]] in a [[Texas]] refinery explosion incident, and was assessed $108 million in fines - the highest workplace safety fines in U.S. history.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197_page5.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster,] ''[[60 Minutes]]'', 16 May 2010. Retrieved from cbsnews.com, 2 June 2010.</ref>

=== Nalco and Corexit ===
[[File:Dermatitis4.jpg|right|375px|thumb|Dermatitis is one immediate health concern<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/28/bp-gulf-oil-spill-pollution Gulf oil spill is public health risk, environmental scientists warn,] Suzanne Goldenberg, ''[[Guardian (uk)]]'', 28 May 2010.</ref> of the [[Obama administration]]'s decision to use [[toxic]] substances to disperse the visibility of the spill.
[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CB4QFjAD&url=http://www.chemie.uni-regensburg.de/Physikalische_Chemie/Kunz/student/Uebung_Formulierung/Clark_presentation.pdf&rct=j&q=photo+dermatitis+corexit&ei=qn0ITPGEM-qXlAfeo8TSAQ&usg=AFQjCNHp_FTjbxFEzZI4o9iMcapG_kFO3Q&sig2=zxmIoVnIi2vekrq3WB6ztA]Residents, cleanup workers, and tourists alike may be affected. [http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=31005&news_channel_id=145&channel_id=145] ]]
Nalco of Naperville, Illinois formed a joint venture with Exxon Chemical in 1994 and the company's current leadership includes several executives from BP. Nalco reported it sold in excess of $40 million to BP of its dispersant, Corexit, shortly after the [[Gulf of Mexico]] oil spill disaster.

Of 18 dispersants approved by the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA), 12 were found to be more effective on southern [[Louisiana]] crude than Corexit, EPA data show.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/business/energy-environment/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup,]
Paul Quinlan, ''Greenwire'', May 13, 2010. Retrieved from nytimes.com 25 May 2010.</ref> Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on [[Gulf of Mexico]] crude, whereas two Corexit products rated only 56 percent and 63 percent effective.<ref>Ibid.</ref> The [[toxic]]ity of the other 12 was shown to be in some cases 10 or 20 times less than Corexit, according to the EPA.<ref>Ibid.</ref> "It's a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically," said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

Corexit was found to be one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed.<ref>''Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview'', Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark. Report prepared for Exxon Biomedical Sciences.</ref> With seasonal warming of water temperature the toxicity grows. Corexit is banned in the [[United Kingdom]] due to [[environment]]al concerns.<ref>[http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/epa-bp-dispersants Why Is the EPA Letting BP Use Dirty Dispersants?], Kate Sheppard, ''Mother Jones'', 19 May 19 2010.</ref> The Obama EPA gave BP the green light to apply Corexit to the spill.<ref>Ibid.</ref> At the Congressional hearing investigating the Gulf oil spill disaster, [[Democratic]] Representative Jerrold Nadler of [[New York]] raised the prospect of "thousands and thousands of people getting sick or dying" as a result of the administration's sanctioned use of the dispersant.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/science/earth/28workers.html Worry About Dispersant Rises as Men in Work Crew Complain of Health Problems,] Leslie Kaufman and Elizabeth Rosenthal, ''New York Times'', 27 May 2010.</ref> Critics allege use of dispersants like Corexit are largely for cosmetic purposes. Nalco has been a frequent contributor to the campaign of Sen. [[Mary Landrieu]]<ref>http://saveourwetlands.org/index-landrieu.html/</ref> of Louisiana.<ref>http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/fec/?id=273&cycle=2007-2008</ref>

== Deepwater Horizon ==
[[File:Deepwater Horizon Fire.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Fire boat response crews battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon, April 21, 2010 (U.S. Coast Guard)]]
On [[Earth Day]] 2010, a BP-leased oil drilling rig sank to the bottom of the [[Gulf of Mexico]] two days after it exploded, creating what has been described as the "worst environmental disaster in [[American History Lectures|US history]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref> [[Secretary of the Interior]] [[Ken Salazar]] told [[CNN]] "It potentially is catastrophic," and "I think we have to prepare for the worst."<ref>[http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/gulf-oil-spill:-impossible-to-measure-impact-of-%22unprecedented-environmental-disaster%22-477603.html?tickers=BP,HAL,CAM,RIG,XLE,OIL,USO Gulf Oil Spill: Impossible to Measure Impact of "Unprecedented Environmental Disaster",] Aaron Task, May 03, 2010. Retrieved from Yahoo Finance 12 May 2010.</ref><ref>[http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/02/salazar-oil-spill-massive-and-a-potential-catastrophe/ Salazar: Oil spill 'massive' and a potential catastrophe,] [[CNN]], 3 May 2010.</ref>

Congressional investigators think they have identified the rigs blowout preventer as the cause of the explosion. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240323493707434.html Congress Homes In on Rig's Blowout Preventer,] Ben Casselman and Jennifer Levitz, ''Wall Street Journal Online,'' 13 May 2010.</ref> The blowout preventer was leaking hydraulic fluid, had a dead battery,<ref>Ibid.</ref> and was inspected by the Obama [[Minerals Management Service]] (MMS) only two weeks before to the explosion<ref>White House Press Office, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-bp-oil-spill-gulf-coast Press Briefing on the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Coast,] 29 April 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 12 May 2010.</ref> which killed 11 people. [[Amy Goodman]], a [[leftist]] radio talk show host, has suggested those responsible should be [[prosecute]]d for [[manslaughter]].<ref>[http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/law_order_corporate_crime_unit_20100518/ Law & Order,] Amy Goodman, 18 May 2010. Retrieved from truthdigg.com 30 May 2010.</ref>

Blowout preventers are meant to shut off the well, and the last line of defense is a set of shear rams which cut the pipe and seal off the well.<ref>Congress Homes In on Rig's Blowout Preventer, Ben Casselman and Jennifer Levitz, ''WSJ Online,'' 13 May 2010.</ref> The MMS, the [[Obama administration]] agency that regulates offshore drilling along with the Coast Guard, is supposed to require proof that shear rams are powerful enough to shut the well. Michael Saucier, MMS's regional supervisor testified before Congress that the MMS did not require BP to file a "scenario for potential blowout."<ref>Ibid.</ref> The MMS certified that BP "has the capacity to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge."<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/gulf-oil-spill-exceeds-bp_n_556798.html</ref>

A May 2010 Inspector General's report revealed at least two MMS regulatory inspectors admitted to being under the influence of the [[illegal drug]] [[methamphetamine]] while on the job.<ref>[http://www.wusf.usf.edu/news/2010/05/25/drugs_free_football_tickets_and_porn_at_minerals_management_service Drugs, Free Football Tickets and Porn at Minerals Management Service,] 25 May 2010. Retrieved from wusf.usf.edu 26 May 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/49932-us-bureaucrats-smoked-crystal-meth-watched-porn-as-bp-oil-rig-blew US bureaucrats smoked crystal meth, watched porn as BP oil rig blew,] Starr Keshet, 25 May 2010. Retrieved from tgdaily.com 26 May 2010.</ref>

==Environmental disaster ==
[[File:Oil slick map.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Projections of the flow of the spill over the summer of 2010. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37497578/ns/local_news-new_york_ny/] ]]
On 29 April 2010 oil began washing ashore in Plaquemines Parish, [[Louisiana]]; four weeks later local leaders still were begging [[President Obama]] for federal assistance in responding to the disaster which was overtaking hundreds of miles of shoreline.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/26/gulf.oil.spill.plaquemines/index.html Plaquemines Parish president blasts federal response to oil spill,] CNN, 26 May 2010.</ref>

Crude oil has washed into marshes, estuaries and onto beaches in [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]]. Wildlife has been killed and efforts are underway to save oil-coated
birds. Without capping the well [[Florida]]'s Everglades may be turned into a "dead zone." Scientists expect currents to carry the oil slick to the eastern seaboard of the [[United States]], fouling beaches and estuaries like the [[Chesapeake Bay]] and fishing grounds of the Grand Banks off [[Newfoundland]].

=== Silverfish ===

Most scientists agree that Corexit 9500 will have a much larger biological effect when it reaches coastal areas teeming with wildlife.<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref> Many species are being threatened at a crucial time in their life cycle.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2818588720100428 FACTBOX-Possible environmental impact of Gulf oil spill,] ''[[Reuters]]'', 28 April 2010.</ref> In testing done by the U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] the dispersant Corexit 9500 was found to be extremely lethal to silverfish, a benchmark [[organism]] in [[toxic]]ity testing.<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>

=== Gulf menhaden ===

Gulf menhaden are a [[specie]]s harvested mostly for fish meal and fish oil. Menhaden could be badly affected
by the spill.

=== Coral, oyster and shrimp ===

Corals, oyster and shrimp likewise are critically affected. Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programmes for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council has said, “There is a [[chemical]] [[toxic]]ity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” which "in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”<ref>Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic. Retreived from Belona.org 15 May 2010.</ref> Shrimp were found to be extremely vulnerable to the lethal effects of the chemical dispersant Corexit 9500 used by [[Obama administration]] disaster relief agencies and BP in testing done by the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA).<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>

=== Brown pelican ===
[[File:Dead birds and sea turtles.jpg|right|325px|thumb|Dead birds and sea turtles. ]]
The [[Louisiana]] state bird, the Brown Pelican, was removed from protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2009. The Obama administration approved BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig without the proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) required by law. The disaster occurred just as breeding season commenced.

=== Other bird species ===

Other species endangered by the oil spill are American oystercatcher and Wilson's plover.

=== Sea turtles ===

As several species of sea turtles move through the Gulf during their spring nesting season, they need to surface to breathe.

=== Toxic oil spill rain ===
A report prepared by the [[Russia]]n Ministry of Natural Resources warned that the leaking [[crude oil]] into the [[Gulf of Mexico]] is about to become the worst [[environment]]al catastrophe in all of human history, threatening the entire eastern half of [[North America]] with “total destruction.” Russian scientists based the assessment on the use of millions of gallons of the government approved chemical dispersant Corexit.

The Russian scientists outlined that Corexit, with its 2.61ppm [[toxic]]ity level, combined with the seasonal warming of Gulf of Mexico waters, the [[molecule]]s will be able to “phase transition” from their present [[liquid]] to a gaseous state allowing them to be absorbed into clouds and released as “toxic rain” upon all of Eastern North America.

The scientists warned should a [[Hurricane Katrina]] like storm form in the Gulf while tens of millions of gallons of Corexit are floating on or near the surface, the resulting “toxic rain” falling upon the North American continent could “theoretically” destroy all microbial life to any depth it reaches resulting in an “unimaginable environmental catastrophe” destroying all kinds of life forms.<ref>[http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/toxic-oil-spill-rains-warned-could-destroy-north-america/ Toxic oil spill rains warned could destroy North America,'] EUTimes, 24 May 2010. Retrieved 3 June 2010.</ref>

== The response ==

Initially [[Department of Homeland Security]] and the [[U.S. Coast Guard]] reported on 23 April 2010 there was no leak from the sunken oil rig.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-23-deepwater-horizon_N.htm Coast Guard: No oil leaking from sunken rig,] Rick Jervis, ''[[USA TODAY]]'', 23 April 2010.</ref> The next day the [[Obama administration]] officially estimated a leak from the sunken well at 1000 barrels per day.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/oil-rig-deepwater-horizon_0_n_550849.html Oil Rig, Deepwater Horizon, Leaking Into Gulf Of Mexico,] Cain Burdeau, 4 April 2010. Retrieved from the ''[[Huffington Post]],'' 15 May 2010.</ref> The ''[[Associated Press]]'' reported it took nine days after the explosion and loss of life before President Obama made his first comments on the disaster.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100509/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_gulf_oil_spill_obama_s_response Obama oil response: aggressive as crisis unfolded,] ,H. Josef Hebert and Erica Werner, ''Associated Press'', 9 May 2010. Retrieved from news.yahoo.com 2 June 2010.</ref> BP's stock fell<ref>[http://in.reuters.com/article/idINLDE63S0HR20100429 European shares turn negative; BP falls,] ''Reuters'' 29 April 2010.</ref> on news of the "the worsening oil spill" and administration estimates were raised to 5000 barrels per day.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29spill.html Size of Spill in Gulf of Mexico Is Larger Than Thought,] Campbell Robertson and Leslie Kaufman, ''New York Times,'' 28 April 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2010.</ref> and appointed a national incident commander.<ref>http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/a-timeline-of-the-bp-oil-spill-crisis-pics/?p=10743/</ref>

=== U.S. Government dumps toxic dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico ===
[[File:Dispersants spraying.jpg|left|300px|thumb|Aerial image of the [[United States]] [[government]]'s dumping [[toxic]] disperants into the [[Gulf of Mexico]]. ]]
''Wired Science'' reports the [[Obama administration]] disaster-relief agencies are using a toxic chemical to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. Use of dispersants are said to be a public relations strategy.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/ Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative,] Brandon Keim, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from ''Wired Science'' 15 May 2010.</ref> Secretary [[Janet Napolitano]] of the [[Department of Homeland Security]] acknowledged<ref>[http://www.oilspillupdates.com/oil-spill-videos/obama-oil-spill-bill-on-bp-chem-spray-to-save-nature/ Obama: Oil spill bill on BP, Chem spray to save nature,] Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Updates, 04th May 2010. Retrieved from oilspillupdates.com 29 May 2010.</ref> the U.S government was dumping toxic chemicals from [[C-130]] cargo aircraft onto the spill.<ref>[http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-05-02/news/os-oil-disaster-chemical-cleanup-20100502_1_dispersant-spill-crude Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix,] Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref> Jackie Savitz of the ocean-conservation group Oceana stated the use of dispersants is only slightly less horrendous than the Gulf oil spill itself. "You're basically pouring chemicals into the ocean, which is never a good thing."<ref>Ibid.</ref> According to a 2009 [[Environmental Protection Agency]] report dispersants have not been used in the United State prior to the Obama administration's approval at BP'S request "because of possible long-term environmental effects, difficulties with timely and effective application, disagreement among [[scientist]]s and research data about their environmental effects, effectiveness, and [[toxic]]ity concerns" and the effects "are still unknown."<ref>Ibid.</ref> Residents in areas close to the oil spill have reported odors and symptoms such as [[headache]]s, dizziness, [[nausea]], eye irritation, and respiratory problems.<ref>[http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/gulf_oil_spill_air_quality_upd.html Gulf Oil Spill Air Quality,] Gina Solomon, 24 May 2010. Retrieved from Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog, 3 June 2010.</ref>

=== Disregard for worker safety ===
[[File:Cleaup300.jpg|right|275px|thumb|Cleanup workers exposed to the Obama adminsitration's decision to use known [[toxic]] substances to disperse the spill. Critics allege dispersants are ineffective and largely for cosmetic purposes. ]]
The ''[[Guardian (uk)]]'' has reported the controversy over Corexit exposes the [[Obama administration]] to criticism that its scientific agencies have been too accommodating to BP's strategy. In addition to the use of Corexit, the Obama [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) came under fire for withholding test results on the toxicity of the water close to shore.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/gulf-oil-spill-chemical-dispersant</ref>

The dispersant 2-BE is known to cause heath dangers to clean up workers<ref>http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/oil_spill_clean-up_workers_get.html</ref> and wildlife alike.<ref>[http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/chem_dispersants_work_at_cost Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic.] Retrieved from Belona.org 15 May 2010.</ref> 2-BE has been documented to cause the breakdown of [[red blood cell]]s, leading to blood in urine and feces, and can damage the kidneys, liver, spleen and [[bone marrow]] of humans – effects not included on the information sheet for workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> The dispersant Corexit 9500 is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems as sides effects to clean-up workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> Lawrence Duffy of the University of Alaska claims dispersants "are more a public relations measure than a preventive one. It has an effect on our psychology because we don't see the oil slick,"<ref>Ibid.</ref> though oil particles continue to do damage.<ref>Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix, Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref>

=== Government mismanagement of relief efforts ===

Three weeks into the disaster [[National Public Radio]] reported the [[Obama administration]]'s official figures were still grossly underestimated<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525 Gulf Spill May Far Exceed Official Estimates,] Richard Harris, ''National Public Radio,'' 14 May 2010.</ref> and after the first month it was finally admitted the spill was nearly three times larger than earlier thought.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/28flow.html Estimates Suggest Spill Is Biggest in U.S. History,] Tom Zeller, Jr., ''New York Times'', 27 May 2010.</ref>

Federal officials did not begin burning the leaking oil off the surface of the water until one full week after the rig collapsed.<ref>[http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/burning_should_have_started_a.html Burning should have started a week ago, former NOAA official says,] Ben Raines, ''Mobile Press-Register'', 29 April 2010.</ref> Louisiana Governor [[Bobby Jindal]] criticized [[President Obama]] for his slow response.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzEntQPr9OA</ref> ''The New York Times'' castigated the [[White House]] for delays and not moving quick enough, calling the evidence "damning" and declaring the Gulf oil spill a "huge disaster whose consequences might have been minimized with swifter action" from the [[Obama administration]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html Unanswered Questions on the Spill,] ''New York Times'' Editorial, 30 April 2010.</ref> One month into the spill, [[Democrat]]ic stalwarts [[James Carville]],<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2521614/posts Is James Carville racist?], 26 May 2010. Retrieved from freerepublic.com 30 May 2010.</ref> [[Chris Matthews]],<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37632.html#ixzz0om46RhGH</ref> and Donna Brazile<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/99375-donna-brazile-calls-obamas-oil-spill-response-not-tough-enough</ref> criticized the inept and bungled response to the spreading catastrophe.
[[File:Finalisttransoce.jpeg|left|250px|thumb|Chris Oynes (left) of the Mineral Management Service presents Keelan Adamson (right) of Transocean the MMS's, ''Safety Award for Excellence'' (SAFE),<ref>http://www.mms.gov/awards/SAFEcriteria.htm</ref> at the MMS National Award luncheon, 7 May 2009.<ref>http://www.beaconmag.com/gomrigteamswinmm.html</ref> ''Source: Beacon magazine'']]
The [[White House]] lacked any type of plan to combat the disaster. [[U.S. House of Representatives|House]] Democratic Majority Leader [[Steny Hoyer]] publicly admitted that the [[Obama Administration]] was ill-prepared to deal with the situation. <ref>[http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/04/mms-thought-deepwater-horizon-was-awardwinningly-safe.html MMS Thought Deepwater Horizon was Award-Winningly SAFE,] The Project on Government Oversight, Exposing Government Corruption, 29 April 2010.</ref> While the disaster steadily grew, Obama did not discuss the crisis at length until he appeared at a photo op at Venice, Louisiana on 3 May 2010.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126467960 Obama Says Oil Spill Damage Could Be Unprecedented,] Scott Horsley, [[NPR]], 3 May 2010.</ref> He would order a moratorium on all future deep sea oil platforms until they determine the problems associated with the current situation. As to be expected, Obama tries to remove himself from blame saying "the system failed", this despite the fact the he heads the system. Then he pointed fingers of blame at oil companies while taking an indirect jab at the Bush administration. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005039-503544.html Angry Obama Seeks to Deflect Blame for Gulf Oil Spill Crisis, CBS, May 14, 2010]</ref>
{{cquote|For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. That cannot and will not happen anymore.}}
White House spokesman [[Robert Gibbs]] did his best to put a good spin on the disaster claiming the response was "comprehensive and fast." Meanwhile, the [[Democrat]]-led Congress ordered public hearings from oil executives. President Obama blamed others saying the answers from oil executives were a "ridiculous spectacle," "You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else." <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/burning_rig_of_fire_VkeuMCffwTUd9IBS7gUV7K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=#ixzz0oWm4u9zQ New look at Gulf oil spill as cleanup continues, NYPost, May 15, 2010]</ref> As the disaster progressed and questions arose over the government's misreporting and withholding<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-feds-withheld-videos-showing-massive-scope-oil/story?id=10819367 BP and Feds Withheld Videos Showing Massive Scope of Oil Spill:] Coast Guard Told Public Not to 'Fixate' On Rate of Spill While Sitting On Video, Brian Ross, Matthew York, and Avni Patel, ABC News, 3 June 2010.</ref> of information from the [[public]] about the true dimensions of the calamity, the ''[[Associated Press]]'' noted,
{{cquote|First [Obama] was going to make BP pay for the Gulf oil mess. Then he declared himself in charge. Now he's trying to find out 'whose ass to kick' and making clear he'd fire BP's chief if only he could.<ref>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100608/D9G7C5U00.html</ref>}}
[[File:Energy Tax bill.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Estimated impact of Obama Energy Tax in job losses. Total job loss: 2.2 million. ''Source: National Black Chamber of Commerce'' [http://www.nationalbcc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=750:nbcc-study-generates-concerns-about-waxmanmarkey-climate-change-bill-costs-are-high-but-benefits-are-uncertain&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=7] ]]
=== Revitalizing cap and trade energy tax ===
:''Main article:'' '''[[Cap and trade]]'''
[[President Obama]] has been roundly criticized by [[Democrat]]s and [[Republican]]s alike for attempting to use the [[nation]]al tragedy to revitalized his failed Cap and Trade energy proposals. The Obama proposal, widely perceived as a job-killer tax increase, has stalled in the [[U.S. Senate]]. [[California]] Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]] has stated the climate bill "isn't going to stop the oil leak."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/15/obamas-pitch-energy-speech-gulf-crisis-infuriates-republicans/ Obama Draws Bipartisan Criticism for Using Oil Spill to Push Energy Policy,] [[FOXNews]].com, 16 June 2010.</ref>

[[Environmentalist]]s want the President to push the program. Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund calls the opportunity "a political moment" to pass a carbon tax estimated to cost the average U.S. household $4300 per year.<ref>[http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/15/the-4300-energy-tax/ The $4300 Energy Tax,] Nicolas Loris, 15 May 2009. Retrieved from Heritage.org, 19 June 2010.</ref>

Joel Benenson, who conducted polling for Obama’s presidential campaign, thinks the tax increase could pass, but wary Senate Democrats say otherwise. “There’s not a great call for it" said [[West Virginia]] Democratic Senator [[Jay Rockefeller]]. “It’s unrelated” to the immediate crisis in the Gulf noted Senator [[Ben Nelson]], Democrat from [[Nebraska]].<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-16/democrats-say-climate-bill-lacks-momentum-after-spill-update3-.html Democrats Say Climate Bill Lacks Momentum After Spill,] Lisa Lerer and Simon Lomax, ''Bloomberg'', 16 June 2010. </ref>

=== Assistance of foreign governments ===
Nearly two-months after the disaster took place, the Obama administration decides to utilize the assistance offered by 17 countries, the U.N and the European Union. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304232.html After delays, [[U.S.]] begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill, WaPo, June 14, 2010]</ref> International aid offers already accepted include two skimmers and 2.6 miles (4.2 kilometers) of boom from [[Mexico]], three sets of sweeping arm systems from the Netherlands and 1.86 miles (3.0 kilometers) of boom from Canada, the State Department said. The State Department noted that it has assisted BP in directly sourcing equipment and technical experts from around the world, including from Algeria, Australia, Bahrain, [[Brazil]], [[Canada]], China, Denmark, Latvia, Norway, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the [[United Kingdom]]. <ref>[http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20100615-275709/US-taps-into-foreign-assistance-for-Gulf-oil-spill US taps into foreign assistance for Gulf oil spill, Agence France-Presse, June 15, 2010]</ref>

===Public relations offensive===
Faced with declining poll numbers and a public relations calamity, [[President Obama]] took to the airwaves nearly 60 days into the spill. A ''New York Times'' Op-ed commented,
{{cquote|All we got from President Obama was a vague call for some sort of new energy policy. Plus a Gulf Coast Restoration Plan, an oil spill study commission, a reminder that the secretary of energy won a Nobel Prize in physics and 17 references to God, prayer, blessings or faith.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/opinion/17collins.html The Boring Speech Policy,] Gail Collins, ''New York Times'' Op-ed, 16 June 2010.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/06/17/behar-laments-shocking-bush-obama-garofalo-slams-anti-intellectual-pr Behar Panel Sees '[[Bush]]-Like' and '[[Corporatist]]' [[Obama]], [[Janeane Garofalo|Garofalo]] Slams 'Anti-Intellectual' [[Prayer]],] Joy Behar Show, [[CNN]]. Retrieved from newsbusters.org, 20 June 2010.</ref>}}
Former speechwriter for President [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Chris Matthews]], chided the President after his address to the nation,
{{cquote|Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] [[Steven Chu|Chu]] has a [[Nobel prize]]. I'll barf if he does it one more time.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command,"]. Retrieved from RealClearPolitics.com, 20 June 2010.</ref>}}

==Economic impacts==
[[File:Oilslick.png|right|275px|thumb| Oil slick map as of May 30, 2010.]]
The economic impact of the [[Gulf of Mexico]] oil drilling disaster will be large and devastating to several key industries, including fishing, tourism, and transportation.<ref>[http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/Perspective/PerspectiveDetail18638.htm Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Gulf Coast Oil Spill,] Nariman Behravesh, 4 May 2010. Retrieved from ihsglobalinsights.com 8 May 2020.</ref>

The top commercial species in terms of value are shrimp ($367 million), menhaden ($64 million), oysters ($59 million), and blue crab ($38 million).<ref>National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Fisheries Economics of the United States, Silver Spring, MD, 2008.</ref> As of 25 May 2010, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) closed 54,096 square miles to commercial and recreational fishing.<ref>http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon_oil_spill.htm</ref> These areas are some of the richest fishing grounds in the Gulf of Mexico for major commercial species such as white shrimp, blue crab, and oysters.

===Employment in fishing===
The most immediate economic impact of the oil spill has been on the Gulf fishing<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/fishing-industry-hammered-by-gulf-oil-spill/41612D0E-B338-464D-A15E-5885B1D227D6</ref> industry. The number of [[job]]s at stake, which includes seafood processing and related wholesale and retail, is over 200,000 with related [[economic]] activity of $5.5 billion.<ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41262.pdf Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Selected Issues for Congress,] Curry L. Hagerty and Jonathan L. Ramseur, Congressional Research Service, 27 May 2010. (pdf p. 2.).</ref>

Dockside sales in [[Louisiana]] are approximately $660 million.<ref>National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Departtment of Commerce, [http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/econ/2008/FEUS%202008%20ALL.pdf Fisheries Economics of the United States,] Silver Spring, MD, 2008. (pdf).</ref> Loses to the Louisiana fishing could be as high as $2.5 billion.<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/story/insurers-brace-for-liability-hit-from-oil-spill-2010-05-05</ref>

===Employment in tourism===

The tourist industry employs 620,000 people who earn over $9 billion in wages in the Gulf of Mexico region. Analysts say [[Florida]] alone could lose $3 billion in tourism.<ref>[http://www.royalgazette.com/rg/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7da532730030019&sectionId=65 Insurance industry concern grows over oil spill liability,] Alistair Barr, ''Royal Press Gazette'', 6 May 2010.</ref>

In 2008, recreational anglers took 25.4 million fishing trips and spent over $12 billion on equipment and trips in the Gulf region.<ref>National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Fisheries Economics of the United States, Silver Spring, MD, 2008.</ref> Some of the most popular recreational species include snappers, several types of drum, sheepshead, and Spanish mackerel. Recreational fisheries support businesses such as charters, bait and tackle, and services such as restaurants and hotels.

In 2000, 21.9 million people visited Gulf beaches and accounted for 177.2 million beach days.<ref>Brent Ache, David Bylsma, and Kristen Crossett, et al., The Gulf of Mexico at a Glance, National Ocean Service, NOAA, A Tool for the Gulf of Mexico Alliance and the American Public, Washington, DC, 2008. [http://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/pdfs/gulf_glance_1008.pdf pdf].</ref>

===Transportation===
The Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA),<ref>[http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2010jun00034.html OMSA slams offshore drilling moratorium,] 3 June 2010. Retrieved from Marinelog.com, 19 June 2010.</ref> the national trade association for U.S. flag vessels in the energy sector, criticized the [[Obama administration]]'s moratorium on offshore drilling projects. 100,000 jobs were immediately affected by the president's decision as companies began cancelling contracts to carry supplies, forcing layoffs. "The industry has struggled to climb out of a severe economic downturn. The moratorium threatens any hope of recovery and creates the potential for economic hardship that could last a decade or longer," remarked OMSA President Ken Wells.

OMSA estimates that for every mariner who works on-board a vessel, there are nine other Americans working in shore-side jobs that support vessel operations. Beyond the vessel crew, the negative consequences of the moratorium could impact everyone from service technicians supporting everything from diesel engines to the air condition systems to the local grocer who supplies food for the boat's galley.

Offshore vessels are a major part of the tax base in many coastal communities. Gulf Coast state and local government revenues will also decrease due to lower [[income tax]] and [[sales tax]] collections.

Disruption of shipping traffic in and out of the Port of [[New Orleans]] will impact barge, container, and tanker traffic in the Mississippi Delta and along the [[Mississippi River]]. Prices of all types of commodities would affected.

=== Insurance industry ===

BP, the operator on the oil drilling lease with a 65% stake, insured itself, rather than buying coverage from insurance companies. Industry analysts estimate total costs related to the oil spill cleanup and damages could exceed $14 billion. <ref>[http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6410IJ20100502 U.S. oil spill could bill could exceed $14 billion,] Tom Bergin, ''Reuters,'' 2 May 2010.</ref>

=== Lost revenue to state and local governments ===
:'''Louisiana'''
A Greater New Orleans study indicates the [[Obama administration]]'s moratorium could cost [[Louisiana]] as many as 22,000 jobs and more than $782 million in revenues.

With the average deepwater rig employing 230 workers with an average salary of $98,000, the study puts the tax revenue impact at $151 million if drilling were to resume within 18 months. Greater New Orleans President and CEO Michael Hecht says it’s difficult to be optimistic based on President Obama’s [[Oval Office]] address on 15 June 2010. President Obama's action “has the potential to turn an ecological tragedy into an economic calamity,” Hecht said.<ref>[http://neworleanscitybusiness.com/blog/2010/06/16/study-moratorium-could-cost-up-to-22000-jobs-782m-in-lost-revenue/ Study: Moratorium could cost up to 22,000 jobs, $782M in lost revenue,] Greg LaRose, ''New Orleans City Business'', 16 June 2010.</ref> The study foresees in a worse case scenario the loss of more than 22,000 jobs, 3,450 of them directly tied to the operating rigs and 18,945 with indirect ties such as catering firms and other companies that serve U.S energy producers.

Fearing that the drilling moratorium "could exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the impacts of this spill upon both our [[economy]] and our [[environment]]," U.S. Senator [[Mary Landrieu]] wrote to President Obama on 11 June 2010.<ref>http://landrieu.senate.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases/06-11-2010-1.cfm</ref> Landrieu stated,
{{Cquote|more than 300,000 Louisianians are employed either directly or indirectly by the oil and gas industry. ..The immediate impacts to the economy are devastating enough: idling the 33 rigs currently permitted to drill in the deepwater Gulf would immediately impact [[employment]] for roughly 38,000 crewmen, deck hands, engineers, welders, ROV operators, caterers, helicopter pilots, and others who operate and service these vessels. That's like closing 12 large motor vehicle assembly plants in one state, all at once.}}

Lost state and local tax revenues will accrue at a rate between $8 million and $15 million a month. Federal royalty losses will be substantial and a significant drop in tolls collected for the Louisiana Highway 1 bridge at Leeville, the main artery to the Port Fourchon energy port is projected as well.
:'''Texas'''
The [[Texas]] state comptroller’s office reported collection of $2.3 billion in oil and natural gas production taxes in fiscal year 2009 and $4.1 billion in 2008. The tax revenue is used to repair roads and fund schools, among other state services. Although no official analysis of President Obama's decision to place a moratorium on offshore production has been compiled yet, the Texas comptroller’s office said it’s unclear how much of an impact the president's decision will have on state services. Experts warn the president's decision could threaten tens of thousands of jobs in the [[Houston]] area.<ref>[http://www.kvue.com/news/state/Deepwater-drilling-moratorium-threatens-Texas-tax-revenue-95848579.html Deepwater drilling moratorium threatens Texas' tax revenue,] Gabe Gutierrez, 8 June 2010. Retrieved from kvue.com, 20 June 2010.</ref>
:'''Alabama'''
Manufacturing jobs in [[Alabama]] are at risk as a result of [[President Obama]]'s actions, as no new orders for equipment are coming in.<ref>[http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=94652 NOIA Member Cos Feel Drilling Moratorium Impacts,] National Ocean Industries Association, 11 June 2010.</ref>

=== Increased dependency on foreign oil ===

[[New Jersey]] Democrat Senator [[Robert Menendez]] proposed a ban on new offshore drilling permits and submitted a bill that would retroactively raise the financial liability of BP from $75 million to $10 billion. <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/05/senator-menendez-on-oil-spill-no-new-drilling-permits.html Senator Menendez on Oil Spill: No New Drilling Permits, ABCNews, May 12, 2010]</ref> Oklahoma [[Republican]] Senator [[James Inhofe]] successfully killed the bill saying it would reduce competition and shut down smaller independent oil companies in favor of larger companies.

=== Too big to fail ===
An oil industry trade publication<ref>[http://oilprice.com/Environment/Oil-Spills/The-Cover-up-BP-s-Crude-Politics-and-the-Looming-Environmental-Mega-Disaster.html The Cover-up: BP's Crude Politics and the Looming Environmental Mega-Disaster,] Wayne Madsen, 06 May 2010. Retrieved from oilprice.com 6 June 2010.</ref> reports [[President Obama]] and senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary [[Ken Salazar]], are working with BP on [[legislation]] that would raise the cap on [[liability]] for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However the disaster has the real potential of costing nearly $1 trillion. Critics point out that in the deal between Obama and BP, $10 billion is a drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster. Talk is noted in government circles, including [[FEMA]], of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world, and BP would, if its assets were nationalized, be credited with almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/the-cover-up-bps-crude-politics-and-the-looming-environmental-mega-disaster-2/ The Cover-up: BP's Crude Politics and the Looming Environmental Mega-Disaster,] Wayne Madsen, 06 May 2010. Retrieved from infowars.com 6 June 2010.</ref><ref>[http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/31/why_obama_should_put_bp_under_temporary_receiversh/ Why Obama Should Put BP Under Temporary Receivership,] [[Obama_doublespeak#Change|Robert Reich]], 31 May 2010. Retrieved from talkingpointsmemo.com, 6 June 2010.</ref>

After Obama charged [[Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]] to investigate the disaster, BP establish a $20 billion extrajudicial fund managed by an Obama appointee.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37574 Obama's Latest Shakedown,] David Limbaugh, ''Human Events'', 06/20/2010.</ref> Former [[CNN]] news writer and radio talk show host Mike Malloy suggested Holder is beholden to [[corporatist]] interests.<ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100603042451.aspx The AG vs. BP: Little Skepticism on ABC and NBC, While Lefty Talker Blasts Holder as 'Corporatist' Pretender], Rich Noyes, Media Research Center, 3 June 2010.</ref>

== Criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the disaster ==
[[File:Memorial for oil workers.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Memorial service for the 11 workers killed in the explosion. ''Reuters'' [http://www.daylife.com/photo/00nya1C9URdAy?q=Mississippi] ]]
Former top adviser to President [[Bill Clinton]], [[James Carville]], turned visibly emotional in a interview with [[George Stephanopoulos]] on [[ABC]]'s ''[[Good Morning America]]'' over [[President Barack Obama]]'s "lackadaisical" response to the Gulf oil spill disaster.
{{Cquote|The political [[stupid]]ity is unbelievable. ... The President of the United States could have come down here. He could have been involved with the families of these 11 people...... He could have implemented a plan in anticipation of this... He could be commandeering tankers and making BP bring tankers in and clean this up.... He could be deploying people to the coast. He could be with the corps of engineers and the Coast Guard with these people in Plaquemines Parish, doing something about these regulations. These people are crying. They're begging for something down here. And it just looks like he's not involved in this! Man, you have got to get down here and take control of this! Put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving! We're about to die down here!<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/bp-oil-spill-political-headache-obama-democrats-slam/story?id=10746519 'Political Stupidity': Democrat James Carville Slams Obama's Response to BP Oil Spill; Democratic Strategist Said White House Should've Acted Quickly: 'We're About to Die Down Here',] Jake Tapper and Huma Khan, ''Good Morning America,'' 26 May 2010. Retrieved from abcnews.go.com 28 May 2010.</ref><ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0526/unhinged-carville-obama-gulf/ Unhinged Carville goes off on Obama on oil spill, The Raw Story, May 26, 2010]</ref><ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasalert/2010/20100526121155.aspx</ref>}}
Carville also said in a separate interview on [[CNN]] with [[Anderson Cooper]],
{{Cquote|They are risking everything by this ‘go along with BP’ strategy they have. They seem, like, lackadaisical on this...they seem like they’re inconvenienced by this, this is some giant thing getting in their way and somehow or another, if you let BP handle it, it’ll all go away. It’s not going away. It’s growing out there. It is a disaster of the first magnitude...the government thinks that they are partnering with BP. I think they actually believe that BP has some kind of a good motivation here. That’s one of the, sort of, whole flaws is they're naïve.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/23/sotu.01.html State of the Union with Candy Crowley,] CNN, 23 May 2010. Retrieved 20 May 2010.</ref><ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/james-carville-obama-administration-seems-inconvenienced-by-bp-oil-spill/</ref>}}
Obama acknowledged the criticism days later in a televised press conference:
{{Cquote|Where I was wrong was in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios.<ref>Remarks by President Obama on the Gulf Oil Spill, Office of the Press Secretary, 27 May 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 29 May 2010.</ref>}}
[[File:Day12 comedyskit1.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Day 12 of the Disaster: Obama enjoys an evening of levity and banter with the Washington Press Corps at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.]]
[[MSNBC]] talk show host [[Chris Matthews]]<ref>Matthews said of Obama during the Potomac Primaries, "it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often." [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-thi_n_86449.html]</ref> said on [[Jay Leno]]'s ''Tonight Show'',
{{Cquote|The president scares me. He's been acting a little like a Vatican Observer here. When is he actually going to do something? And I worry. I know he doesn't want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, 'I'm in charge,' he takes the blame.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100524/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2219 White House seeks to fend off growing chorus of critics on handling of Gulf spill,] ''Yahoo News'', 24 May 2010. Retrieved 30 May 2010.</ref>}}

[[Secretary of State]] [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]'s presidential campaign manager in 2008 questioned if [[Democratic]] primary [[voter]]s had
{{Cquote|underestimated the value of experience and crisis management as important attributes for their president.<ref>[http://topics.npr.org/article/04M3gpJa4p92Z?q=NPR Did 2008 Democratic primary voters underestimate value of experience?] Alex Pappas, ''The Daily Caller'', 06/06/10. Retrieved from npr.org, 6 June 2010.</ref>}}

Donna Brazile, who managed the presidential campaign of Democratic [[candidate]] [[Al Gore]] in 2000 said on [[ABC]]'s ''[[This Week]]'',
{{Cquote|One of the problems I have with the administration is that they're not tough enough. They are waiting for BP to say, ‘oh, we've got a new plan to stop the oil leak.’ They need to stop it, contain it, clean it up, and try to help us conserve our coastal wetlands.<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/99375-donna-brazile-calls-obamas-oil-spill-response-not-tough-enough Donna Brazile calls Obama’s oil spill response ‘not tough enough’,] Ben Geman, ''The Hill'', 23 May 2010.</ref>}}

[[Dick Morris]], an intimate adviser to President [[Bill Clinton]] observed,
{{Cquote|these failings show that Obama is in over his head. But to the [[left]], which bleeds for each drop of water in the gulf and cries over every turtle or shrimp or sea bird, it is an unpardonable sin...Obama's incompetence and inexperience is causing [[liberal]]s to see him as arrogant, aloof, removed, conceited, suspicious of outside advice and even lazy...these character defects will haunt the president until 2012 and beyond.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/06/19/dems_turn_on_obama?page=full&comments=true Dems Turn On Obama,] Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, 19 June 2010. Retrieved from Townhall.com 19 June 2010.</ref>}}

David Gergen worked in the [[Reagan]], [[George H.W. Bush]], and Clinton White House remarked,
{{Cquote|If our government had fought [[WWII]] like the way we’re fighting the oil spill, there’s a good chance many of us would be speaking [[German]] today.<ref>[http://www.ihatethemedia.com/david-gergen-rips-obama-oil-spill-response Another Democrat turns on Obama: David Gergen rips Obama’s oil spill response, Ihatethemedia.com, May 27, 2010]</ref>}}

[[Peggy Noonan]], a speech writer for President's Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, summed up public perceptions with,
{{Cquote|The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen.... he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the [[Centrist|center]]....The American people have spent at least two years worrying that high government spending would, in the end, undo the republic. They saw the dollars gushing night and day...And now we have a videotape metaphor for all the public’s fears: the well gushing black oil into the [[Gulf of Mexico]] ...His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. ... Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet the need ...[[Hurricane Katrina|Katrina]] illustrate[d] that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. [[Conservative]]s got this point—they know it without being told—but [[liberal]]s and [[progressive]]s did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of [[George W. Bush]]’s incompetence and conservatives’ failure to “believe in government.” But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent....It’s not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort.<ref>[http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=524 He Was Supposed to Be Competent]: The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy., Peggy Noonan, ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', 29 May 2010.</ref>}}

''[[New York Times]]'' columnist [[Liberal_hate_speech#Against_the_disabled|Maureen Dowd]] wrote,
{{Cquote|Obama and top aides who believe in his [[divinity]] make a mistake to dismiss complaints of his aloofness as Washington white noise. He treats the press as a nuisance rather than examining his own inability to encapsulate Americans’ feelings.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30dowd.html Once More, With Feeling,] Maureen Dowd, ''New York Time'' Op Ed, 29 mMay 2010.l</ref>}}

Actor Robert Redford demanded action from the [[Obama administration]]. The liberal special interest group [[Natural Resources Defense Council]] has Redford in a new ad decrying the lackluster response.<ref>[http://biggovernment.com/jmeath/2010/05/25/obamas-katrina-in-the-gulf/ Obama’s ‘Katrina’ in the Gulf, BigGovernment.com, May 25, 2010]</ref> Redford made an appearance on MSNBC and said there is no one manning this ship,
{{Cquote|In this case, we don’t need a disaster manager, we need a leader.}}

[[Hollywood values|Liberal Hollywood]] director [[James Cameron]] says;
{{cquote|Over the last few weeks I've watched, as we all have, with growing horror and heartache, watching what's happening in the Gulf and thinking those morons don't know what they're doing. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/cameron-titanic-spill-morons/2010/06/03/id/361007 'Titanic' Director Cameron: 'Morons' Directing Spill Efforts, NewsMax, June, 2010]</ref>}}

Obnoxious Hollywood liberal [[Rosie O'Donnell]] said, "We broke the womb of freaking mother Earth." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/06/08/rosie-odonnell-wants-bps-assets-seized-we-broke-freakin-womb-mother-eart Rosie O'Donnell Wants BP's Assets Seized, NewsBusters.org, June 8, 2010]</ref> In addition, O'Donnell accused BP of
{{cquote|willful homicide, willful mass murder" and demanded BP be nationalized immediately: "I say seize their assets. Right now. Seize their assets today. Take over the company.}}

===Foreign reaction===
Relations between allies the [[U.K.]] and U.S. are now at historic lows thanks to Barack Obama's mishandling of the oil spill. Britain had been repeatedly mocked by Obama prior to the spill<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/mar/06/obama-dvd-brown Obama's DVD gift to Brown - it's the thought that counts,] ''Guardian UK,'' March 6, 2009.</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain,] ''Telegraph UK,'' February 14, 2009.</ref> <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/obama_disses_brit_pm.html Obama disses Brit PM, American Thinker,] March 5, 2009.</ref> but now find themselves subjected to endless [[propaganda]]. Prominent foreign dignitaries have expressed the public's growing frustration with the administration's posturing and hunt for scapegoats. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who supported Obama in 2008, decried "anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling" while Lord Tebbit branded Mr Obama's conduct “despicable” and the president's rhetoric
{{cquote|a crude, [[bigot]]ed, [[xenophobic]] display of [[partisan]] political Presidential petulance."<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285467/BP-OIL-SPILL-Lord-Tebbit-Boris-Johnson-attack-Obamas-anti-British-rhetoric.html#ixzz0rK7zthtN</ref><ref>[http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23843524-boris-johnson-tells-barack-obama-stop-bashing-britain.do Boris Johnson tells Barack Obama: Stop bashing Britain,] London Evening Standard, June 6, 2010.</ref>}}
The atmosphere Obama created in Britain is so toxic that the British press has labelled Barack Obama the most unpopular man in England. <ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/17/2010-06-17_president_barack_obama_is_the_most_hated_man_in_england_says_british_reporter.html Barack Obama: the most unpopular man in Britain?,] Telegraph UK, June 17, 2010.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Disasters]]
[[Category: Environment]]

==External Links==
* [http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23oilspill Twitter Feed: #Oilspill (warning vulgar comments left)]
* [http://www.bp.com/bodycopyarticle.do?categoryId=1&contentId=7052055&nicam=USCSBaselineCrisis&nisrc=Google&nigrp=Non_Branded Official BP Global Oil Spill News Website]
* [http://dailybail.com/slideshows/bp-disaster-dying-birds/5613601 Photos of Gulf birds covered in oil]