Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The Town and the City

2012-09-13T02:45:49Z

JuanMotame: title

'''''The Town and the City''''' is the first published novel of the American author [[Jack Kerouac]] (born Jean-Louis Kerouac on March 12, 1922 - died October 21, 1969).

It is thought to have been inspired by his father's death.

The novel is Kerouac's longest. Before writing it he made a decision not to stop until he had completed 300,000 words. It was published in 1950 by Harcourt Brace.

Kerouac wrote the novel over a period of two years, keeping a diary that detailed much of his philosophical and literary troubles during this time. He relied upon the works of [[Fyodor Dostoevksy]], calling Dostoevksy's wisdom "the highest wisdom in the world" after he grew tired with the essays of the "too self-conscious" [[Leo Tolstoy]], for spiritual guidance.

It was aptly pointed out that Kerouac relied heavily upon the influence of [[Thomas Wolfe]] while writing the novel, and many comparisons can be made between it and the works of Wolfe. Many critics, however, suggested that Kerouac, far from merely emulating Wolfe, had surpassed him.

The novel is about a large family, (surname Martin) and features the five sons and three daughters of the family growing up, and being drawn from their semi-rural life in Galloway, to the symbol of capitalism and urbanity - the "melting pot" - that was New York, all in search of fame and identity.

Kerouac applied many of his own character traits to the sons of the family, though he can be most closely compared with Peter Martin. Much of the events and conversations that happen in the novel and to Peter have their parallel in Kerouac's own life. Several of his friends appear in the work, including the writer [[Allen Ginsberg]] and his own father, as George Martin.

[[The Town and The City]] takes the form of a bildungsroman. It is an impeccable first novel, written when Kerouac was in his early twenties, and was proceeded by Kerouac's most famous work ''[[On the Road]]'' - the most perfectly appropriate novel to serve this role.

His most conventional novel, it is also the most revealing. It allows one to assess the mind of Kerouac before he had developed (and subsequently become associated) with his own 'spontaneous prose' style and the Beat Generation movement he would come to lead (though not, entirely, voluntarily).
[[Category: literature]]
[[category:novels]]
[[category: American writers]]

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 23

2012-09-13T02:44:41Z

JuanMotame: /* A bit misleading */ Good point but simply reverting screws up the formatting again.

== Evolution not evidentially based and evolution as a social construct ==

Given that there is [[evolution|no real evidence for evolution]], I have decided to put together material for an upcoming Conservapedia article some of which will be incorporated into the evolution article which will partly reveal why there are so many [[Theories of evolution]]. The material I have gathered so far and am in the midst of fact checking is here: [[User:Conservative/EvolutionAsSocialConstruct]] The article will be given the title: [[Evolution as a Social Construct]]. I thought it would be a complementary article for Conservapedia's article: [[Causes of Atheism]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Actually there is real evidence for evolution. You greatly underestimate the scientific method to propose that something without evidence could be considered a scientific theory under those rules.[[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:36, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::Riddles, I suggest you read [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#The_Issue_of_Whether_the_Evolutionary_Position_Qualifies_as_a_Scientific_Theory what Karl Popper wrote about the evolutionary paradigm concerning whether or not it is a theory (His subsequent actions were quite revealing as well).] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Conservative, Popper was a great admirer of both Darwin and Darwinism. He also thought that metaphysics played an important role in enabling the production of testable theories. Whether Darwinism is seen as a method for producing scientific theories (which is what Popper meant by "metaphysical research programme") or a scientific theory itself, seems to be a very fine point: too fine for an introductory article.[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)
::::::Toffeeman, when you actually address the issue get back to me, but not before then. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== Quick Question... ==

I understand other points of view on evolution, and I've looked at the archive of this talk page, so before I open my mouth, I have a question:
This article, as well every other article on this wiki, is supposed to represent THE conservative point of view on evolution?
We all must acknowledge that different conservatives may know more or less than others, but their collective opinion is supposed to be presented in this article. Am I correct? [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] 00:47, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Please show us that the evolutionary position is a conservative position. You can start with the early church fathers and Moses. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:17, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Well, "THE" evolutionary position ISN'T a conservative position, all the conservatives I know and this page make that pretty clear. You know what, now that I think about it, I think this page is all good and representative of that standard, then. The numerous improvements I would suggest would not be appropriate for this wiki, because most conservatives don't know about them. I think the best thing I can do is support public knowledge of such topics elsewhere. If conservatives know about said suggestions, then said suggestions and conservative commentary would be appropriate. I have nothing to add to this article. Good luck on the article and God bless. [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] 16:54, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== The Farm-fox study ==

In the article you refer to a 40(?) year experiment in botany that failed, I was just wondering here if anyone has seen the farm-fox study of domestication which seems to directly contradict this, you can find it [http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2009/Behavior%20Genetics/Farm-Fox%20Experiment.pdf[Here]] I am just posting this because you say you post facts, and it just seems that this article (evolution) is one that is missing many factual arguments. confirmation bias is a dangerous game, and while some people disagree with evolution if you really learn what it is you will see that it has no conflict with religion. It seems right now that most people who refuse to believe in evolution only have a rudimentary understanding of it. The "it's only a theory" seems to be another common strategy and this is invalid as well, theories in the scientific community are not like theories in real life, they are the highest honor bestowed upon a scientific thesis, and to tell you the truth there are fewer cracks in evolution than in newtons laws(a few of newtons laws have already been proven false). Arguments that it seems are being purposely ignored, this is one of the few articles here I have a big problem with so I figured I would offer some actual evidence to see if I can get it changed unlike most people who just come in here and act like a gibbering (deleted) about what they don't like. I would also like to point out that many of the "facts" like the distrust among doctors and the world public distrust of evolution is kinda [http://aysps.gsu.edu/econ/files/ECON_SustersicRebecca_Evolution_summer07.pdf[directly contradicted by this]]. other things like the Irreducible complexity theory are kinda [http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/K_HVrjKcvrU-irreducible-complexity-bacterial-flagellum-debunked.aspx[b.s. as well]]. just thought I would present actual information to attempt to get the article changed instead of coming in here like a gibbering moron and complaining.
:Dear Sev,
I'd like to comment on the Farm-Fox Experiment you linked to. Foxes and Dogs are closely related, so closely in fact that they may be able to interbreed. This is not surprising once you realize they are in fact two descendants of the single baramin 'dog-wolf-fox' that was taken onto Noah's Ark! The original couple had all the dog-wolf-fox information in his DNA, and this information was subsequently corrupted, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The foxes in the experiment you described show an example of micro-evolution, in which the 'dog' genes were selected among the population. No-one denies this can happen, and it is certainly not a proof for the theory of Evolution.
I hope my post helped you understand this issue.
Regards,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:52, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:Micro evolution is still evolution, evolution it self only denotes a change in a species over time. if the dog traits were continued to be selected for the domesticated fox could become a entire other species, and unable to reproduce with the native fox population, it would take a couple hundred years to achieve but even the most anti-evolutionary can agree that if you change genes enough eventually you will have an entirely different set of them. using your analogy and since any trait can be selected for and brought to any ridiculous lengths given the time and food, the same process that was used to domesticate the fox, could be used to say select for ear size and strength of the muscles in the ear in terriers, then selecting for light weight and low bone density one could theoretically make a terrier that is capable of flying using its ears. I realize that this is a totally asinine and over the top but it is only to demonstrate the concept, micro evolution is still evolution, no matter how small. macro-evolution is just micro evolution over a frankly ridiculous amount of time. Sorry if this makes no sense kinda in a hurry but would like a opinion on it if you did get its meaning, I'll be back soon and can fix it then if you did not.

:--[[User:Sev|Sev]]

== Irrational? ==

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[242]"

This isn't irrational, it's actually a valid comment on the scientific method. Science by definition searches for naturalistic explanations, if someone was able to propose a supernatural explanation (even if it were true) it would be outside the domain of Science. Again, this has nothing to do with "true vs. false"
ie, "god created life" may be true, but if it can't be verified naturally it isn't science.
Cheers
[[User:Tim111|Tim111]] 22:03, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Tim, please give a fairly exhaustive listing of definitions of science with the attending sources. Second, please do elaborate on why a valid definition of science would result in all physical data pointing to conclusion being ignored as I rightfully believe that claims should be adequately supported. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: The non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Since the god of the bible is apparently unrestrained by natural laws he is supernatural and therefore unsatisfactory as a scientific explanation of natural phenomena. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:07, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::Jamesmackenzie, please show that the non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Argument by mere assertion is rather pointless. And last time I checked, the originator of the scientific method, [http://www.bartleby.com/3/1/16.html had a very dim view of atheism]. Of course, atheists believe that natural laws have never been suspended in history. Isn't that right? Now if you want to show that Bacon was an atheist or deist by all means do so, but I do not believe you can do that. It seems to me at this point that your alleged pillar has no foundation - especially when one looks at Bacon who originated the scientific method. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Allow me, if you would.
The scientific method:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://kbagdanov.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/scientificmethod.jpg
There are more, but I'm going to presume you get the idea and move along.

The basis of the scientific method is the experiment. You form an idea. [Form hypothesis] You try something, and then try it again, and again [collecting data], until you see a pattern [analyze data]. Then you take that pattern and check it against your hypothesis [confirm or deny hypothesis], and if it doesn't match, you work on a new hypothesis and try again. When you find a working hypothesis, congratulations. You have something worth sharing. [Share results]

The problem is that using this method, you are assuming that today and yesterday and tomorrow are equivalent when you look for patterns. To make that assumption is completely equivalent to assuming no divine intervention for any given event witnessed and used as data. I'll go through a logic chain if you REALLY want it, but can you not see how this is the case already? EDIT: -Jones
::::Jones, an evolutionist using logic? Thanks for entertaining us with your dry humor. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:05, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Article appears to be non-neutral ==

I'm a conservative in most ways- but I do have a quick question- why does this article take God and Evolution and make them mutually exclusive? Evolution says nothing about God not existing- indeed- I cannot imagine a way that we could form without god's intervention. I support a theory known as guided evolution- where that while species did evolve and change overtime- god oversaw the whole process, guiding it into new directions. Just a thought. God bless! --[[User:Rockstone|Rockstone]] 22:17, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Rockstone, you failed to provide any evidence for your hypothesis of guided evolution. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:11, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::[[Intelligent Design|This ought to be enough evidence, methinks]]. Cheers, [[User:Trustworthiness|Trustworthiness]] 03:11, 18 August 2009
::::::That only talks about the beginning of life, evolution is the genetic change in populations over generations via environmental factors and random mutations and in the case of theistic evolution, by a god [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:40, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== Some links need to be updated ==

Many in the "Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position" section. They currently go to redirect pages. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 21:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== A bit misleading ==

"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community."

The comment is deliberately misleading. As also stated in [[Lamarck]]'s article (on this site), Lamarck proposed that animals acquire such traits through use over generations/lifetimes. The following is a bit more thorough: "Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned" ([http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]).

NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567]

This is only one of several deliberating misleading comments present throughout; perhaps sites such as "medterms.com" are not the best choices as cogent sources.
::::Perhaps, you should also claim that the Conservapedia Pi article is misleading because it doesn't go far enough out to the right of the decimal point as far you wish concerning the value of [[Pi]]. In short, there is a difference between precision and being misleading. When you are done trying to create a tempest in a teapot, let me know. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote. "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." It could also include, "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

== a study: Morals decline and evolution, incorporate in article ==

Incorporate in article, A study: Morals decline and evolution: http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution
[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:31, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
::Correlation does not imply causation. If that were the case then the decline of pirates would be causing global warming [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:42, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::Riddles, please show us a culture where the evolutionary paradigm improve morals or was not deleterious to the morality of a culture. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:08, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

==A request for permission to use this article==

Hello, I found this page and the counter examples page whilst searching for material to help our children to get a balanced view of the topic. Here in Norway (and all of Scandinavia) the education system is VERY left-wing and atheist, and there is very little non-evolutionist information in Norwegian. Would it be OK if I translated some of your articles to pass on to the our young? By the time kids here have learned good English many have been indoctrinated in to the evolutionist world-view, so I would like to give them both sides of the arguement when they are still young.

I hope I can help you with other things on your excellent site. Trond Eirik [[User:TESvestad|TESvestad]] 16:22, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

: Yes, please do translate and use freely. Thanks for your interest and open-mindedness. I particularly like the [[Counterexamples to evolution]] and find it to be a good educational presentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:29, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

::Hopefully you will give your young a balanced education and allow them the question both sources for and against evolution. Remind them that they should not make up their mind until they hear everything and that, no offense, even you could be wrong here. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:46, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Or you could be wrong. All I've seen from you is not just a severe lack of ''proving'' evolution, but your constant talking of it in riddles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== United States point of view ==
Dear co-workers. I'm not sure if I understood well, but I think it's a pity this article only gives an American poinst of view. According to the logo of this site this is logical, but I would appreciate it when is was also written in a more general point of view. Now there are a lot of data which only represent the situation in the USA, but maybe we can consider to add data of other countries. E.g. if the article mentions that 40% of the Americans see the Evolution theorue as true, why not also mention that 27% of the Turkish and 50% of the Rumanian does the same? Thanks [[User:Zenschaatser|Zenschaatser]] 08:53, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::The article mentions the UK as well. If you have data from other countries as well about how Darwinism is losing public support, please feel free to share this information. I do know that the Darwinism is appearing to lose public support in Australia since 1990 and that it has lost a considerable amount of public support in Turkey in recent times as well. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:01, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

== Question on Transitional Forms ==
It seems to me that if the theory of evolution were correct, then nearly every animal would be some kind of transitional form (apart from species that die out). Supposedly, I am a transitional form between my parents and my children. Theoretically, evidence of a lack of transitional forms could, and seems to often be taken to the extreme of requiring every minute change in an organism, or it is dismissed as incomplete. 1000 years from now, if one were to dig up my parents and my children, and conclude they inherited certain genetic variations from evolutionary pressure, someone with the "conservative point of view" would claim there was no transitional form, thus the two organisms were obviously not evidence of evolution. This article seems to lack any questioning of the extremes the idea of transitional forms is taken to by most religious scholars, nor does it show the increasing amount of evidence of actual transitional forms. I fear conservative thought buries itself in a hole when ardently supporting or opposing ideas because they have disagreements with small parts of the bible. The bible was written by men, and as the Bible clearly states, men are not perfect.
::::I noticed you did not have any actual evidence of evolutionary transitional forms supposedly created by macroevolution. By the way, the word Bible is is supposed to be capitalized (I am sure that this was a mere oversight by a scholar such as yourself). :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:16, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::Macro evolution is merely a label for species evolving into other species (which is basically "micro" evolution given enough time) Like the above poster stated, all creatures are transitional forms and the evidence is the actual creatures itself. If you were to look at a high definition digital picture of a rainbow, looking at a pixel and the one right next to it you wouldn't be able to notice the difference easily at all. However it is clear that as you go on a noticeable change begins to occur. This is evolution and "macro evolution" is when those creatures go from being red to noticeably orange.
::::::Always happy to educate people on evolution [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Riddles, I believe [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118 you are mistaken] and if you check the [[evolution|Conservapedia evolution article]] you will find that creation scientists believe in speciation. I don't believe speciation could be considered large scale changes. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

==Interesting article==

Though someone might appreciate this: [http://creation.com/multiverse-theory Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être?] When someone is well adapted to its purpose, and able to adapt, it is easy to presume that is how it can to be.

BTW, the Bible speaks of "kinds", and Creationists believe in microevolution within such.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:53, 18 November 2009 (EST)

== Intellectuals Reference ==

Claiming Aristotle & Archimedes as evidence against Evolution is pretty silly considering they lived many, many years before Darwin. That's like saying gravity is unverifiable because Plato never wrote about it. I'm not attacking the whole article. Just that one point is a terrible argument.
::::Evolutionism was around before Darwin. Next time you comment on an article, you might want to read it first. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Inclusion of Gallup Poll of "Scientists" Opinnions ==

Hi!

This is a well written article, with some really good links and references provided. After doing some research, I wanted permission to include a reference to another poll in the opening paragraphs.

Just below the paragraph containing the well referenced mentions of polls on American citizen's acceptance of evolution, and the opinions of medical doctors, I would like to include a reference to the 1997 Gallup poll on "scientists" acceptance of evolution.

The results show that while a near majority of the public are creationist, only 5% of scientists are. 40% of scientists believe in "God-Guided" Evolution, and 55% accept an entirely naturalistic theory of evolution.

There is a breakdown of the study here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm (Also, I assume it could be accessed from Gallup itself, though I can't work out how. Perhaps this information would be stored in a public library?)

Since this site is all about presenting the facts, and this article already makes significant use of polls to demonstrate those facts, I feel this is an appropriate addition to this article.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you'll include my suggestion! I put alot of reasearch into it.

Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 22:04, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Lex, the study you cited is already in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:04, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Hitler and Evolution ==

I myself have read Mein Kampf, and I can assure you that Hitler did not believe in evolution. Hitler believed in divine creation and was quite religious. Example: Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. 10.

It is terribly biased to say Hitler killed people because he was an atheist when he himself claims to be a theist. I suggest the Hitler section be removed, or be heavily revamped. Thanks for your time.

=== LRose's Response ===
Hi, I don't know who wrote the above post, but this is my response!

Actually, there is evidence in ''Mein Kampf'' that Hitler, like most leaders of the time (even those professing Christian faith), did subscribe to the theory of evolution. He invoked a simplistic understanding of the theory to justify his hatred of the Jews. In ''Mein Kampf'', Hitler uses Evolution to try and argue that the Jews were a different species, and thus the German people shouldn’t mate with them:

<blockquote>
“If '''Nature''' does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an '''evolutionary''' higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.“
Chapter XI Race & People

</blockquote>
<blockquote>

“Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the preservation of the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is a primal necessity and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardly egoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development. For it is a necessity of human '''evolution''' that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favor of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than '''Nature''' and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.“
Chapter XI Race & People
</blockquote>

(Sorry for not including page references, I was using this online translation of ''Mein Kampf'': http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)

Now, I don’t speak German, so I couldn’t read the original. It is possible the word here translated as “evolution” comes from a different German word, which does not have the same scientific meaning.

However, even so, it’s clear that Hitler is using arguments of natural superiority to justify his racism.

But He also used arguments from faith, referring to God, Creation, and suggesting the Jews are somehow the work of the Devil.

<blockquote>
“Of course, one doesn't discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of '''God's''' image in''' His creation'''.“
Chapter XI War Propaganda
</blockquote>

Here, he argues that the Germans were the ones created in the image of God, and breeding with the Jews will corrupt them: <blockquote>
“for all the Jewish daughters of the department store proprietors are looked upon as eligible mates to co-operate in propagating '''His Lordship's stock'''.”
Chapter X Why The Second Reich Collapsed
</blockquote>

Here he talks of Jesus, and argues that Jesus was anti-semetic:
<blockquote>
And the '''Founder of Christianity''' made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time '''Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews''';
</blockquote>

Clearly, Hitler had a horribly, offensive, perverted understanding of the Gospel!!! It's revolting to even read it!!

But the point is, he used Christianity to justify his actions. Thus, the Evolutionists can make the exact same arguments against us, as we make against them.

So, anytime we say that the Holocaust was a “social effect of Evolution” they’re just going to say that it was a “social effect of Christianity”.

My Conclusion:

It’s clear from ''Mein Kampf'' that Hitler was nothing more than a nut job opportunist. He claimed to believe in anything that supported his own crazy racism.

I would also argue that we should remove the section on Hitlet’s belief’s in evolution. Because I would hate to go to Wikipedia, or some liberal site, and see them claiming that Hitler was a Christian, and it was his belief in Christianity that lead to the Holocaust.

I believe in honest debate. And to me, it’s dishonest to say that Hitler was an Evolutionist. He was no more and Evolutionist, than he was a Christian.

- Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 21:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Do you also deny that [[Josef Mengele]] was an evolutionist?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::Does it matter if he was an atheist? This post is bout Hitler, not that guy. Use him if you want, and if he was an evolutionary atheist, but he is not the same person as Hitler. Your argument is invalid. -Jones
::::Jones, were [[Hitler]] and [[Josef Mengele]] both Nazis and did they both believe in Nazi evolutionary racist ideology? If you evidence to the contrary Conservapedia would be most indebted to you if you shared it. I was curious whether or not you were very knowledgeable about this subject matter and I also wanted to know if your logic was unimpeachable. Of course, if you were merely a liberal deceitfully and illogically spouting off of about matters you know very little about, it will soon become apparent. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:13, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== ERV's ==

ERV's alone put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvF4q88YODU Endogenous Retroviruses: Life-Cycle and Ancestral Implications]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8kDzftu2w4 Endogenous Retroviruses: The Three Layers of ERV Evidence for Common Ancestry]
:::[[Endogenous retrovirus|Are you aware of any arguments against ERV's by creation scientists]]? If so, what are they? "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes to examine him." - King [[Solomon]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:01, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::What is a creation scientist? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 01:28, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::Hectoruribe, have you ever heard of search engines? They are really great things that enable you to answer very simple questions yourself. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:57, 17 April 2010 (EDT)
::::::::In fact, just search Conservapedia. We have an article on [[creation science]] that explains it quite well. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 16:59, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

== evolution and debate ==

evolution and debate: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html Research the facts surrounding the debate and cite it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:08, 1 January 2010 (EST)

== climategate and darwin doubting ==

Climategate and darwin doubting: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34935 Incorporate in the article perhaps. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:12, 1 January 2010 (EST)

== Definition ==

I'd just like to suggest that the definition of evolution from Merriam-Webster be changed to " a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory" I think that this would be more accurate, and could reduce the possibilty of accusations of "picking and choosing" --[[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 16:52, 22 February 2010 (EST)
::::Thanks, I put a .... after the Webster citation to be more precise/accurate. I thought the "also" addition didn't really add that much plus it would be less favorable in terms of the sentence's flow. The detractors of the evolutionary paradigm often assert that the evolutionary paradigm is "just a theory" or merely a hypothesis. Regardless, Webster does not consider the evolutionary paradigm to be a scientific law. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:14, 8 March 2010 (EST)

== Lamarckism ==

re: Lamarckism

Has anyone followed what is going on within the evolutionary community regarding this material: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Why Everything You Have Been Told About Evolution is Wrong][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:34, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

== Terribly biased? ==

Why does the entire article talk about evolution as if it is untrue when it is just valid as cell theory plate tectonic theory? [[User:Bradology|Bradology]] 10:17, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
::::Bradology, please let us know when you intend to stop engaging in [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] and start producing valid evidence for the evolutionary paradigm. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:52, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

== Regarding the cross burning ==

David Duke is a creationist. The KKK platform is that the "laws of our creator" should be used. While you can certainly argue convincingly that they are not following the bible closely I do not think you can argue that a political party that is fighting to remove Darwin from biology books is following an evolutionary ideology. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 16:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
::::Please feel free to provide convincing evidence that adequately addresses the footnoted material I provided. I have no desire to engage in dueling monologues. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:28, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

== Bias in Article ==

Bias in general is considered to be anything that influences one's behavior. Having a picture of Hitler at the very beginning of the article is clearly a sample of bias in this sense. Hitler is one of the most hated individuals to have ever lived, and understandably so. Showing an image of him at the beginning of the article gives any reader a predisposition to what they are about to read, as their emotional response will already have begun. As stated in earlier discussions, Hitler cannot simply be labeled an evolutionist. To associate him with evolution at the beginning of the article gives any reader a different view on what they might believe otherwise. Removing this picture as well as his quote, or at least placing it later in the article would resolve this. {{Unsigned | User:NewThought}}
:To deny Hitler was an evolutionist is to deny the reason he murdered over 6 million people. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:22, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
::Not the only reason, mind you, but the most important and influential reason nonetheless. [[User:DavidBG|[[User:DavidBG]]]] 13:45, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::User NewThought, if you don't want web pages to have an effect on your behavior or beliefs, I suggest you close your eyes after clicking on a link and also put your fingers in your ears just in case there is audio. Secondly, you have to better than merely state your positions if you want there to be changes, you have to make a good case for any changes.
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019 [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:52, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lysenkoism ==

There should be a link to [[Lysenkoism]] when the article mentions that pseudo-science. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:13, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:There already is. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 16:42, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

----

I would like to edit the quote of Dawnin in a letter to Gray [2]. It is wrongly quoted and is a fragmented sentence. The whole sentence is "It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
::::::Please elaborate on why you allege that it is wrongly quoted. By the way, are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Conservative, whether this user is atheist or not has nothing to do with the question. He's calling you out for quote-mining Darwin.
:::::::Oh, and user who left no signature—I wouldn't expect this article to be unlocked ever. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 13:03, 8 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::No real evidence was given for the quote mining allegation which I thought was quite unreasonable. I have found that atheists and evolutionists often engage in bluffing as far as their allegations and when you call their bluff no evidence is given by them for their allegations. Please read this article: http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Resident Transfan, are you an atheist? If you are an atheists, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Why liberals cannot point out factual errors ==

This article is almost entirely constructed of quotes. The only thing that the article says for the most part is that Person A said "B" and person C said "D" and the rest is made up of broad generalizations that aren't directly reliant on facts. A challenge could be raised that Person A knows nothing about subject B or that source D is biased in such a way as to compromise reliability but those wouldn't be direct challenges to the factual accuracy of the article. --[[User:AbbieM|AbbieM]] 18:31, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
::::Could you please do us a favor and give us a close percentage of content that is quotes and break it down by quotes from evolutionists and quotes from creation scientists. Also, how many of the footnoted sources did you read? Lastly, can you definitively show that the quotes were factually incorrect in terms of what they asserted (because I can see you did not do that)? By the way Abbie, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::It should be 'an atheist', not 'an atheists'. I appreciate the copy-and-paste message, however, and will be posting an essay on this in the near future.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:27, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::Alright, I've gone through the article and looked at quotes, dividing them into three categories. There are quotes from an Evolutionary point of view, quotes from a Creationist point of view, and quotes that are neutral - a news corporation reporting statistics, for example, would fall under this category. I determined the following percentages by the total number of words.

:::::Here's what I found: Approximately 45% of the article is comprised of quotes. The article itself contains just under 14,000 words, and of those just over 6,000 are quotes. 2400 words are from Evolution supporters, 3150 words are from Creationists, and 650 are from neutral sources (approximately). This means that approximately 17% of the article is comprised of quotes from Evolutionists, 23% from Creationists, and nearly 5% from neutral sources. That means 39% of the actual quotes are from Evolutionists, 51% from Creationists, and about 10% from neutral sources. This was all done by the number of words, not characters. Frankly, I find this percentage to be drastically high. For one thing, should Evolution not be better represented in its own article than Creationism? That is to say, should intellectually honest writers include more quotes from Creationists than Evolutionists in an Evolution article? Furthermore, the Evolution quotes that are included are, practically without exception, cherry-picked and taken out of context. Even in the sources from which they derive, they are rarely given appropriate context. This is a degree of laziness that should only be associated with liberals. We conservatives ought to be more up-to-point.

:::::Also, this entire article reeks of liberal wordiness. Does the article truly need to be this long? Perhaps a single, shorter page should be present to define Evolution, then we could have one page for those who support evolution, and another page for quotes/articles/criticisms of Evolution. That seems the best way to chop this article down to size.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 16:46, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::: Jacob, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Secondly, please put your quote claim statistics in a Excel or Open Office spreadsheet and post it somewhere for verification purposes. Then, please provide proof and evidence concerning each quote you allege to be in error. Lastly, evolutionism is so flagrantly in error that the article is concise. If we were to put the myriad of ways that evolutionism is errant, illogical, wicked and foolish; it would take many sets of CDs to do it justice. We just did our small part to offer something more concise. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:46, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::So, JacobP, the article is completely and totally wrong, and that is based solely on the ''number of words'' in the article? Golly gee...maybe the Bible is wrong because there's too many books in it; maybe the Declaration of Independence is wrong because Jefferson didn't format it properly; maybe the Constitution is wrong because a spell-check wasn't done on it; maybe ''Huckleberry Finn'' is wrong because Twain didn't check with the local school board first. Or maybe, JacobP, it is ''your logic that is wrong''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:45, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::I was told that my "JacobP" username was too similar to another users', so this is "JacobP" under a new username, "JacobPope14", the number being chosen at random. Now, to answer your question, I am not an atheist nor, if I were an atheist, would I claim to have 'proof' of atheism. As a Christian, I do not claim to have proof of Christianity either. My beliefs are not based on rational thought, but on faith, as is the intention of religion.
::::::::::However, regarding the verification of my study, where would you like me to post this information? Can you not merely read through the article, highlight all material that is a quotation, and compare the number of words to verify what the user above was stating? The article is very heavily comprised of quoted material. As a tabloid, perhaps, this would be appropriate, but I think more time ought to be dedicated to rewriting this article with factual information regarding the criticisms of Atheistic Evolutionary Thought, or AET, as I call it. While I do not doubt the credentials of the many people quoted, I highly doubt that any of them share completely identical views on the subject matter, so it may not be appropriate to compose an article that is very near to being more quotes than information itself.
:::::::::::Also, regarding Karajou, I never made a claim that the article was factually errant. I merely stated that it was wordy, taking up a large amount of space to convey a very small amount of actual information. My reference to 'number of words' was an admission to the fact that when I took a comparison of the article - breaking it down into quotes from Evolutionists, Creationists, and neutral sources - I used 'words' as opposed to 'number of quotes' or perhaps 'letters' when I ran the numbers. I find it rather odd that you would so readily attack another Conservative for what I can only guess is an assumption that I have liberal ideas, which I assure you is not the case. I merely want this article to be as factually accurate, concise, and accessible as possible to readers. Are those not admirable goals? [[User:JacobPope14|JacobPope14]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Jacob, I am sorry to hear that your beliefs do not have any basis in rational thought. Are you sure you are not an atheist? The apostles certainly appealed to being eyewitnesses and the Bible in Romans rightly declares that the creation testifies to the existence of God (Rom 1:20). Lastly, as far as your alleged study, there are plenty of free places to post material on the internet.(blogspot, etc. ). [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:56, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

== Why is user [[User:Conservative|conservative]] the only person allowed to edit this article? ==

I assume a few other admins are also allowed to but this article is pretty much completely written by [[User:Conservative|conservative]]. That doesn't seem fair at all. Isn't the whole point of a wiki to allow lots of other people to pitch in on it? How do we know who this [[User:Conservative|conservative]] person is, and how do we know they have the credentials to write an entire article on evolution accurately? It seems completely ridiculous to me that you guys block out everyone except for this one person on the subject of evolution. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 19:45, 29 July (CST)
:And you are...? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:49, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::Someone who reads this from time to time. But my point still stands. How is it fair to let only one person contribute to this article? Considering how much of this article focuses on creationists being silenced and censored in much of the media, you would think that this place, of all places, would welcome the input of others. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 20:36, 29 July (CST)
:::If the input is concerned with a theory, then I would welcome it; but if the input pushes evolution as "fact" then we won't allow it. We've had several members who tried ''forcing'' that viewpoint on us, ''forcing'' the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion, ''forcing'' their own religious beliefs on this site. Didn't work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying you should allow the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion at all. What I'm concerned about is that even if someone wants to add their own creationist/ID material to this article, they can't. The very most I'm guessing they could do is add it to the talk page and let conservative approve it. I don't mean to say anything bad about conservative but why should we leave those decisions SOLELY up to him/her for this one article? If you only let one person write an article on the entire subject of evolution it's bound to have some pretty major flaws. I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous how restricted this article is. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 11:18, 30 July (CST)

::::: A tiny percentage of articles on this site are locked (and later unlocked) due to vandalism. No locking is permanent, and any editor can earn administrative privileges through merit, which gives that editor the power to edit any page. Also, as you suggest, suggested edits to a locked page can always be posted on the talk page. So there are several ways that any editor can contribute to any page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
[[File:Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.jpg|thumbnail|right|275px|'''<big>[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]</big>''' ]]
::::::::Karajou, thanks for the laugh. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:26, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
Has any one here even read any of Charles Darwin's books? Or do you just google, cut and paste?
[[User:Tbunton|Tbunton]] 08:26, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes, I have Darwin's ''Origin of Species'' and ''Decent of Man'' in my house, part of Britannica's ''Great Books of the Western World'', published in 1991, etc etc. And if you look at many college essays or websites devoted to the ''support'' of evolution, you will find evidence of people who "just google, cut and paste." Like those above, you're playing the "evo-is-fact" game without bothering to even creak open your mind just for a little bit to see that what we present are the real facts of the matter. You learn more if you open your mind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:24, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.[1] In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[2][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:15, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why do we have three statistics about medical doctors in the opening section? ==

Medical doctors are not taught anything about evolution in school, nor are they required to know anything about it to practice. They are not experts in the field any more than computer scientists or waitresses. The three different statistics about medical doctors in the article just make it look bad, sort of... desperate. Maybe some statistics about biologists would be good instead? At least some kind of scientist.
:::Are you claiming that [http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science.shtml medical science] is not a science? And are you claiming that medical science does not utilize biology? If so, why? Lastly, you have not shown that macroevolution has existed or does exist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:23, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Evolutionists often claim that the applied science of medicine depends on evolution because it is derived from biology. Therefore, the explicit beliefs of medical doctors is certainly relevant.--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:35, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

== Poe's Law Talk Page ==

When I clicked on the Talk page for [[Poe's Law]], I was redirected to the page on Evolution. Why is that?

Also, in regards to the Poe's Law page itself, why is it filled with material regarding Creationism, even though Poe's Law is not about Creationism? --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 17:19, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:::JohnLee, please provide evidence and further explanation concerning your contentions about Poe's Law and creationism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:40, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

== genome and the evolutionary paradigm ==

Excellent research re: genome and the evolutionary paradigm: http://creation.com/genome-mania [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:41, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
==Suggested addition==

I would like to add some further points from Dr Behe's later book ''[[the Edge of Evolution]]'' to the section "Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position", specifically regarding how Dr Behe empirically proved that ''even if'' we accepted the huge assumptions made by evolutionists, ''their very own theory'' cannot account for the diversity of life we currently see. I guess this article is locked as it was a target for atheist trolls, so if it cannot be unlocked perhaps an administrator could add some more info regarding evolutionists lack of any answers to Dr Behe's findings? [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 17:27, 18 November 2010 (EST)
:::Write up some material and post it here. We can stick it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:29, 1 December 2010 (EST)

=A quote out of context=
Reference 262, quoting Eugenie Scott, is out of context and does not reflect the message of the general article. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 20:54, 30 December 2010 (EST)

:You have to prove your argument much better than that if you want to persuade anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::Mr. Schlafly, you beat me to it! AnaC, my comment was going to be similar to the above comment, if you wonder why I post no reply but indicate so on your talk page. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)
 
After reading the entire article, I came to the conclusion that the article points out several different reasons extraneous to the actual ideas being presented that would suggest a tilt in favor of the creationist discussion

Scott states:
""What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at
the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a
religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship.
That's the first problem. '''The audience that is most anxious to
'''come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that
'''supports the creationist.''' In the comparatively rare situation
where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of
good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the
audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every
effort to turn out their crowd."

The author also talks about debate format as a possible cause:
"The goal of a debate (I assume) is to
teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of
science. This is possible in a debate format, but '''it is difficult
'''to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.
....
How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this
matter? The creationist has made a simple declarative sentence,
and '''you have to deal with not an easily-grasped factual error, but
'''a logical error and a methodological error, which will take you far
'''longer to explain.''' As I was writing this, a community college
teacher called to tell me she had trouble convincing her students
they were made out of smaller parts! Now maybe not all audiences
are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept cell
theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It
didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms",
"radiometric dating doesn't work," etc.) means '''you have a bunch
'''more talking to do from the get-go'''."
.....
'''I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with
'''creationists, and have done so many times.''' In this format, it is
possible to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though
it seems odd to say it) not possible in a formal debate format. On
the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a
minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?" or something
similar, and show that their "model" is faulty. But in a debate,
the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist gallups
along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.

And finally, the author suggests a method for dealing with this format flaw:
With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of
information and is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to-
answer nonsense. The evolutionist at least has a fighting chance
to teach something about science and evolution.

'''Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they
'''have refused to debate.

It seems to me that way that the quote was used, it was meant to support the view that evolutionists do not want to debate out of the perceived inadequacy of their own arguments, but the author states that it is because of the structural flaws of the debate itself. The author states in the essay that the debater and his supporters think he did a good job, so in the end both parties think they did well, only that, according to the author, the creationist is perceived to have won because he has a lot more support from the audience.

Seen in this context, it would be more useful to use a different quote to support the point of view, since the author is not sincere in his expression that creationists win the arguments. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 22:51, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:But if we recruited heavily, without financial incentives and the like that are normally presented at scientific conferences (no need to hide it, I've seen the same actions taken at financial conferences) and with simply word of mouth and such, I highly doubt we'd have any tangible turn out or visible support if our beliefs were without merit. That's basic psychology and really just common sense, wouldn't you agree? While evolutionists and other such members of the "scientific community" need financial incentives, the promise of glory upon publication in like-minded journals, etc, we don't have this receptive atmosphere. Rather, we have only the weight of our arguments to persuade people. Perhaps this and not the "heavy recruitment" (which the author you mention, interestingly enough, ''does not'' detail in any way) is the reason for our support? Did that possibility occur to you? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:11, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::I do not understand what you are trying to say. I am simply quoting the author, and that is what he claimed--I have no knowledge of whether his claims are true nor the implications they may have if they were (or were not), nor do I know the motivations of the people who do go to the debates. But in any case, if true, the numbers would skew the result, regardless of the method of recruitment.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:28, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::My apologies if I wasn't entirely clear. My reasoning is this: the simple fact that, from personal experience, audiences that share are beliefs have no additional incentive, outside of hearing them validated, to come to such a debate, while evolutionists and other followers of Scott most likely ''do'' have additional incentives, whether they be financial, extra credit in classes, etc. The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that Eugenie Scott is one of our loudest and most vociferous critics. I trust that you're aware of her "participation" in the problems in Dover, where an issue that simply did not concern her suddenly became her business? Interestingly enough, she immediately published a book using her newfound publicity. Do my previous comments about entering a debate for financial incentive seem more clear with that example? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:38, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::::I do not know anything about the author, nor what she has chosen to do with her life. You stated that "The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant.", which I do not understand. I do believe that moral conviction is a much stronger motivator than any financial gain. From my experience, spiritual motivation is one of the strongest motivators that exists. However, I do not understand how this pertains to the fact that the author did not mean to "confess" that creationists win debates, since she does not believe that they were playing fair. The article does not address this, and gives the impression that this is what the author truly believes.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:53, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::::I don't have time at the moment to respond to this immediately as I'm on my way out the door, but if you have any pressing questions, you can email me (tyler.zoran@gmail.com, it's also on my user page) and I'll address them ASAP in the morning. Otherwise, I'll try to respond here tomorrow. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 00:00, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::In the meantime, though, research Eugenie Scott a bit more if you can. You'll find it very interesting, especially when you realize the perspective that influences everything she does. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 00:01, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Experiments on Evolution the article states: The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[11][12]

However this has indeed been observed in nature and experiments demonstrating evolution have been performed in a laboratory, such as Richard Lenski's bacterial studies. Lenski has made all his strains available and it would only be appropriate to repeat the experiments and find flaws in them before dismissing them outright.

: You can't be serious. If that research paper had been submitted to me by a college student, then I probably would have returned it ungraded for reasons explained long ago (and still available) on this website. (Also, please sign your postings using the signature button at the top of the edit space.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:45, 12 January 2011 (EST)

::::There are too many creationists in the audience! A classic case of a whiny evolutionist. Were you personally trained to "defend" evolutionism by [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|this fellow?]][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:18, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Fossil Record ==

The fossil record is not needed to prove the theory of evolution it stands on its own without the fossil record, in fact several animals such as soft bodied animals such as flatworms will not fossilize and leave fossil records, yet we know they exist and have existed in the past.

Many people simply do not understand what fossils tell us or what we can use them for. However to say they disprove the Theory of evolution is simply incorrect. After all even Gravity is just a theory

Separation of Pro/Anti Evolution.
My concern is that rather than detailing what constitutes Evolution and then later the criticisms of the theory, the form of the entire piece is about vaguely describing an evolutionary component and immediately refuting it as utter garbage and leaving it at that. Is it really so difficult to present one side without trashing it as soon as humanly possible. Also, Evolution being a key component in the development of racism is ludicrous. The Spanish Caste system was in existence long before the theory of evolution was introduced. I thought Conservapedia was about providing a place for truth, but what I see here is a place for people who only want the kind of truth that serves to reinforce their viewpoint. I fully support providing evidence which challenges the theory and yet I suppose giving Evolution fair representation is just a sign that I've been corrupted by liberal bias.
:Perhaps there is another way for you to contribute on this subject, but apart from this article. Try articles on natural selection, genetics, various plants and animals, geology, and so on, in which you can explain what main stream science says about them, as well as providing evidence refuting it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 10 February 2011 (EST)
::::[[Essay: As always, there is more work to be done|Evolutionist excusitis]] always happens when evidence is asked for. Please get a real worldview like biblical Christianity which [[Christian apologetics|has plenty of evidence to support it]] and not one you always have to make excuses for. As far as the history of racism in Europe, was racism solely the result of the Spanish Caste System or were there events contributing after? It seems to me as though you are offering a rather simplistic and inadequate commentary here. I would suggest reading material on [[Nazism]] and then contributing to that article. By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is correct. Generally speaking, atheists such as as [[Richard Dawkins]], are rather weak when it comes to [[historiography]] as can be seen [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:39, 10 February 2011 (EST)
== Theory? ==

Evolution is most certainly a fact. --[[User:TheSensei|TheSensei]] 21:51, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:This is what's called an argument by assertion. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:53, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:A "fact" ... just like the "fact" of [[global warming]]? Sorry, declaring something a fact does not make it so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:04, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== "Through natural processes alone" vs. "Darwinism" ==

In the article's third paragraph, I noticed an incorrect assertion based on the results of a poll. The article states that "60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone." Just because someone believes that man did not evolve 100% naturally (evolution), doesn't mean that they believe evolution was 100% supernatural. It is possible that they could believe in both Darwinism and intelligent design. [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 21:40, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

:Darwinism is taught and believed without any "supernatural" intervention. Also, Darwinism directly conflicts with basic [[Christian]] principles, such as [[Jesus]] redeeming the original sin of [[Adam]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:As Mr. Schlafly said, most believers in Darwinism don't believe in intelligent design; most believers in Darwinism are atheists. Also, ''doesn't mean they believe evolution was 100% supernatural'' implies that they all believe in evolution in the first place. Do you deny that there are medical doctors that don't believe in evolution at all? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 09:39, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists ==

I think its unfortunate that despite the generally good quality of the rest of the article, the concluding section reads like it was written by a grade school student. The entire world (with the exclusion of the middle east) consumes alcohol in some form or another, simply drinking beer in a pub is not a sign of poor health. In addition, up to 50% of the U.S. can be considered overweight or obese, since the apparent prevalence of atheism (not self-described, but defined as without belief in a god or life spirit) in the U.S. is on the order of 10%, there are far more obese and overweight theists than atheists. This section as it stands right now reads like an indictment of PZMyers and should be moved to the PZMyers page. In any case, attacking the validity of the theory based on the health of the proponent is a clear ad hominem and should at the very least be revised, since it has no place in an otherwise serious and even-handed article on the theory of evolution. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 22:25, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
:::DenisTR, thank you for indicating that the vast bulk of the article was fair-minded. Secondly, nowhere does the article indicate that because PZ Myers has not done his best to act in accordance with the best information that medical science has made widely available, therefore evolution is false. Lastly, I am guessing you are not a big fan of the introductory picture for [[atheism|Conservapedia's atheism article]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:42, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
[[File:Baron2.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|225px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
::::DenisTR, thanks for your input. I just added the following material to the Conservapedia evolution article: "In August 2009, PZ Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]].[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8280168] During the visit, Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO]" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:24, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::::DenisTR, by the way, the above material concerning PZ Myers and the Creation Museum has now also been added to the [[Atheism]], [[Atheism and obesity]] and the [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]] article. Once again, thank you for your input. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:17, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 23

2012-09-12T21:04:59Z

JuanMotame: /* A bit misleading */ format

== Evolution not evidentially based and evolution as a social construct ==

Given that there is [[evolution|no real evidence for evolution]], I have decided to put together material for an upcoming Conservapedia article some of which will be incorporated into the evolution article which will partly reveal why there are so many [[Theories of evolution]]. The material I have gathered so far and am in the midst of fact checking is here: [[User:Conservative/EvolutionAsSocialConstruct]] The article will be given the title: [[Evolution as a Social Construct]]. I thought it would be a complementary article for Conservapedia's article: [[Causes of Atheism]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Actually there is real evidence for evolution. You greatly underestimate the scientific method to propose that something without evidence could be considered a scientific theory under those rules.[[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:36, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::Riddles, I suggest you read [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#The_Issue_of_Whether_the_Evolutionary_Position_Qualifies_as_a_Scientific_Theory what Karl Popper wrote about the evolutionary paradigm concerning whether or not it is a theory (His subsequent actions were quite revealing as well).] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Conservative, Popper was a great admirer of both Darwin and Darwinism. He also thought that metaphysics played an important role in enabling the production of testable theories. Whether Darwinism is seen as a method for producing scientific theories (which is what Popper meant by "metaphysical research programme") or a scientific theory itself, seems to be a very fine point: too fine for an introductory article.[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)
::::::Toffeeman, when you actually address the issue get back to me, but not before then. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== Quick Question... ==

I understand other points of view on evolution, and I've looked at the archive of this talk page, so before I open my mouth, I have a question:
This article, as well every other article on this wiki, is supposed to represent THE conservative point of view on evolution?
We all must acknowledge that different conservatives may know more or less than others, but their collective opinion is supposed to be presented in this article. Am I correct? [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] 00:47, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Please show us that the evolutionary position is a conservative position. You can start with the early church fathers and Moses. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:17, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Well, "THE" evolutionary position ISN'T a conservative position, all the conservatives I know and this page make that pretty clear. You know what, now that I think about it, I think this page is all good and representative of that standard, then. The numerous improvements I would suggest would not be appropriate for this wiki, because most conservatives don't know about them. I think the best thing I can do is support public knowledge of such topics elsewhere. If conservatives know about said suggestions, then said suggestions and conservative commentary would be appropriate. I have nothing to add to this article. Good luck on the article and God bless. [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] 16:54, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== The Farm-fox study ==

In the article you refer to a 40(?) year experiment in botany that failed, I was just wondering here if anyone has seen the farm-fox study of domestication which seems to directly contradict this, you can find it [http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2009/Behavior%20Genetics/Farm-Fox%20Experiment.pdf[Here]] I am just posting this because you say you post facts, and it just seems that this article (evolution) is one that is missing many factual arguments. confirmation bias is a dangerous game, and while some people disagree with evolution if you really learn what it is you will see that it has no conflict with religion. It seems right now that most people who refuse to believe in evolution only have a rudimentary understanding of it. The "it's only a theory" seems to be another common strategy and this is invalid as well, theories in the scientific community are not like theories in real life, they are the highest honor bestowed upon a scientific thesis, and to tell you the truth there are fewer cracks in evolution than in newtons laws(a few of newtons laws have already been proven false). Arguments that it seems are being purposely ignored, this is one of the few articles here I have a big problem with so I figured I would offer some actual evidence to see if I can get it changed unlike most people who just come in here and act like a gibbering (deleted) about what they don't like. I would also like to point out that many of the "facts" like the distrust among doctors and the world public distrust of evolution is kinda [http://aysps.gsu.edu/econ/files/ECON_SustersicRebecca_Evolution_summer07.pdf[directly contradicted by this]]. other things like the Irreducible complexity theory are kinda [http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/K_HVrjKcvrU-irreducible-complexity-bacterial-flagellum-debunked.aspx[b.s. as well]]. just thought I would present actual information to attempt to get the article changed instead of coming in here like a gibbering moron and complaining.
:Dear Sev,
I'd like to comment on the Farm-Fox Experiment you linked to. Foxes and Dogs are closely related, so closely in fact that they may be able to interbreed. This is not surprising once you realize they are in fact two descendants of the single baramin 'dog-wolf-fox' that was taken onto Noah's Ark! The original couple had all the dog-wolf-fox information in his DNA, and this information was subsequently corrupted, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The foxes in the experiment you described show an example of micro-evolution, in which the 'dog' genes were selected among the population. No-one denies this can happen, and it is certainly not a proof for the theory of Evolution.
I hope my post helped you understand this issue.
Regards,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:52, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:Micro evolution is still evolution, evolution it self only denotes a change in a species over time. if the dog traits were continued to be selected for the domesticated fox could become a entire other species, and unable to reproduce with the native fox population, it would take a couple hundred years to achieve but even the most anti-evolutionary can agree that if you change genes enough eventually you will have an entirely different set of them. using your analogy and since any trait can be selected for and brought to any ridiculous lengths given the time and food, the same process that was used to domesticate the fox, could be used to say select for ear size and strength of the muscles in the ear in terriers, then selecting for light weight and low bone density one could theoretically make a terrier that is capable of flying using its ears. I realize that this is a totally asinine and over the top but it is only to demonstrate the concept, micro evolution is still evolution, no matter how small. macro-evolution is just micro evolution over a frankly ridiculous amount of time. Sorry if this makes no sense kinda in a hurry but would like a opinion on it if you did get its meaning, I'll be back soon and can fix it then if you did not.

:--[[User:Sev|Sev]]

== Irrational? ==

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[242]"

This isn't irrational, it's actually a valid comment on the scientific method. Science by definition searches for naturalistic explanations, if someone was able to propose a supernatural explanation (even if it were true) it would be outside the domain of Science. Again, this has nothing to do with "true vs. false"
ie, "god created life" may be true, but if it can't be verified naturally it isn't science.
Cheers
[[User:Tim111|Tim111]] 22:03, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Tim, please give a fairly exhaustive listing of definitions of science with the attending sources. Second, please do elaborate on why a valid definition of science would result in all physical data pointing to conclusion being ignored as I rightfully believe that claims should be adequately supported. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: The non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Since the god of the bible is apparently unrestrained by natural laws he is supernatural and therefore unsatisfactory as a scientific explanation of natural phenomena. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:07, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::Jamesmackenzie, please show that the non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Argument by mere assertion is rather pointless. And last time I checked, the originator of the scientific method, [http://www.bartleby.com/3/1/16.html had a very dim view of atheism]. Of course, atheists believe that natural laws have never been suspended in history. Isn't that right? Now if you want to show that Bacon was an atheist or deist by all means do so, but I do not believe you can do that. It seems to me at this point that your alleged pillar has no foundation - especially when one looks at Bacon who originated the scientific method. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Allow me, if you would.
The scientific method:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://kbagdanov.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/scientificmethod.jpg
There are more, but I'm going to presume you get the idea and move along.

The basis of the scientific method is the experiment. You form an idea. [Form hypothesis] You try something, and then try it again, and again [collecting data], until you see a pattern [analyze data]. Then you take that pattern and check it against your hypothesis [confirm or deny hypothesis], and if it doesn't match, you work on a new hypothesis and try again. When you find a working hypothesis, congratulations. You have something worth sharing. [Share results]

The problem is that using this method, you are assuming that today and yesterday and tomorrow are equivalent when you look for patterns. To make that assumption is completely equivalent to assuming no divine intervention for any given event witnessed and used as data. I'll go through a logic chain if you REALLY want it, but can you not see how this is the case already? EDIT: -Jones
::::Jones, an evolutionist using logic? Thanks for entertaining us with your dry humor. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:05, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Article appears to be non-neutral ==

I'm a conservative in most ways- but I do have a quick question- why does this article take God and Evolution and make them mutually exclusive? Evolution says nothing about God not existing- indeed- I cannot imagine a way that we could form without god's intervention. I support a theory known as guided evolution- where that while species did evolve and change overtime- god oversaw the whole process, guiding it into new directions. Just a thought. God bless! --[[User:Rockstone|Rockstone]] 22:17, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Rockstone, you failed to provide any evidence for your hypothesis of guided evolution. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:11, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::[[Intelligent Design|This ought to be enough evidence, methinks]]. Cheers, [[User:Trustworthiness|Trustworthiness]] 03:11, 18 August 2009
::::::That only talks about the beginning of life, evolution is the genetic change in populations over generations via environmental factors and random mutations and in the case of theistic evolution, by a god [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:40, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== Some links need to be updated ==

Many in the "Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position" section. They currently go to redirect pages. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 21:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== A bit misleading ==

"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community."

The comment is deliberately misleading. As also stated in [[Lamarck]]'s article (on this site), Lamarck proposed that animals acquire such traits through use over generations/lifetimes. The following is a bit more thorough: ''"Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned"'' ([http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]).

NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567]

This is only one of several deliberating misleading comments present throughout; perhaps sites such as "medterms.com" are not the best choices as cogent sources.
::::Perhaps, you should also claim that the Conservapedia Pi article is misleading because it doesn't go far enough out to the right of the decimal point as far you wish concerning the value of [[Pi]]. In short, there is a difference between precision and being misleading. When you are done trying to create a tempest in a teapot, let me know. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote.'' "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."'' It could also include, '' "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." ''(page 830)

''"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

''"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." ''(page 832)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

== a study: Morals decline and evolution, incorporate in article ==

Incorporate in article, A study: Morals decline and evolution: http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution
[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:31, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
::Correlation does not imply causation. If that were the case then the decline of pirates would be causing global warming [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:42, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::Riddles, please show us a culture where the evolutionary paradigm improve morals or was not deleterious to the morality of a culture. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:08, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

==A request for permission to use this article==

Hello, I found this page and the counter examples page whilst searching for material to help our children to get a balanced view of the topic. Here in Norway (and all of Scandinavia) the education system is VERY left-wing and atheist, and there is very little non-evolutionist information in Norwegian. Would it be OK if I translated some of your articles to pass on to the our young? By the time kids here have learned good English many have been indoctrinated in to the evolutionist world-view, so I would like to give them both sides of the arguement when they are still young.

I hope I can help you with other things on your excellent site. Trond Eirik [[User:TESvestad|TESvestad]] 16:22, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

: Yes, please do translate and use freely. Thanks for your interest and open-mindedness. I particularly like the [[Counterexamples to evolution]] and find it to be a good educational presentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:29, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

::Hopefully you will give your young a balanced education and allow them the question both sources for and against evolution. Remind them that they should not make up their mind until they hear everything and that, no offense, even you could be wrong here. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:46, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Or you could be wrong. All I've seen from you is not just a severe lack of ''proving'' evolution, but your constant talking of it in riddles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== United States point of view ==
Dear co-workers. I'm not sure if I understood well, but I think it's a pity this article only gives an American poinst of view. According to the logo of this site this is logical, but I would appreciate it when is was also written in a more general point of view. Now there are a lot of data which only represent the situation in the USA, but maybe we can consider to add data of other countries. E.g. if the article mentions that 40% of the Americans see the Evolution theorue as true, why not also mention that 27% of the Turkish and 50% of the Rumanian does the same? Thanks [[User:Zenschaatser|Zenschaatser]] 08:53, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::The article mentions the UK as well. If you have data from other countries as well about how Darwinism is losing public support, please feel free to share this information. I do know that the Darwinism is appearing to lose public support in Australia since 1990 and that it has lost a considerable amount of public support in Turkey in recent times as well. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:01, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

== Question on Transitional Forms ==
It seems to me that if the theory of evolution were correct, then nearly every animal would be some kind of transitional form (apart from species that die out). Supposedly, I am a transitional form between my parents and my children. Theoretically, evidence of a lack of transitional forms could, and seems to often be taken to the extreme of requiring every minute change in an organism, or it is dismissed as incomplete. 1000 years from now, if one were to dig up my parents and my children, and conclude they inherited certain genetic variations from evolutionary pressure, someone with the "conservative point of view" would claim there was no transitional form, thus the two organisms were obviously not evidence of evolution. This article seems to lack any questioning of the extremes the idea of transitional forms is taken to by most religious scholars, nor does it show the increasing amount of evidence of actual transitional forms. I fear conservative thought buries itself in a hole when ardently supporting or opposing ideas because they have disagreements with small parts of the bible. The bible was written by men, and as the Bible clearly states, men are not perfect.
::::I noticed you did not have any actual evidence of evolutionary transitional forms supposedly created by macroevolution. By the way, the word Bible is is supposed to be capitalized (I am sure that this was a mere oversight by a scholar such as yourself). :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:16, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::Macro evolution is merely a label for species evolving into other species (which is basically "micro" evolution given enough time) Like the above poster stated, all creatures are transitional forms and the evidence is the actual creatures itself. If you were to look at a high definition digital picture of a rainbow, looking at a pixel and the one right next to it you wouldn't be able to notice the difference easily at all. However it is clear that as you go on a noticeable change begins to occur. This is evolution and "macro evolution" is when those creatures go from being red to noticeably orange.
::::::Always happy to educate people on evolution [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Riddles, I believe [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118 you are mistaken] and if you check the [[evolution|Conservapedia evolution article]] you will find that creation scientists believe in speciation. I don't believe speciation could be considered large scale changes. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

==Interesting article==

Though someone might appreciate this: [http://creation.com/multiverse-theory Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être?] When someone is well adapted to its purpose, and able to adapt, it is easy to presume that is how it can to be.

BTW, the Bible speaks of "kinds", and Creationists believe in microevolution within such.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:53, 18 November 2009 (EST)

== Intellectuals Reference ==

Claiming Aristotle & Archimedes as evidence against Evolution is pretty silly considering they lived many, many years before Darwin. That's like saying gravity is unverifiable because Plato never wrote about it. I'm not attacking the whole article. Just that one point is a terrible argument.
::::Evolutionism was around before Darwin. Next time you comment on an article, you might want to read it first. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Inclusion of Gallup Poll of "Scientists" Opinnions ==

Hi!

This is a well written article, with some really good links and references provided. After doing some research, I wanted permission to include a reference to another poll in the opening paragraphs.

Just below the paragraph containing the well referenced mentions of polls on American citizen's acceptance of evolution, and the opinions of medical doctors, I would like to include a reference to the 1997 Gallup poll on "scientists" acceptance of evolution.

The results show that while a near majority of the public are creationist, only 5% of scientists are. 40% of scientists believe in "God-Guided" Evolution, and 55% accept an entirely naturalistic theory of evolution.

There is a breakdown of the study here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm (Also, I assume it could be accessed from Gallup itself, though I can't work out how. Perhaps this information would be stored in a public library?)

Since this site is all about presenting the facts, and this article already makes significant use of polls to demonstrate those facts, I feel this is an appropriate addition to this article.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you'll include my suggestion! I put alot of reasearch into it.

Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 22:04, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Lex, the study you cited is already in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:04, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Hitler and Evolution ==

I myself have read Mein Kampf, and I can assure you that Hitler did not believe in evolution. Hitler believed in divine creation and was quite religious. Example: Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. 10.

It is terribly biased to say Hitler killed people because he was an atheist when he himself claims to be a theist. I suggest the Hitler section be removed, or be heavily revamped. Thanks for your time.

=== LRose's Response ===
Hi, I don't know who wrote the above post, but this is my response!

Actually, there is evidence in ''Mein Kampf'' that Hitler, like most leaders of the time (even those professing Christian faith), did subscribe to the theory of evolution. He invoked a simplistic understanding of the theory to justify his hatred of the Jews. In ''Mein Kampf'', Hitler uses Evolution to try and argue that the Jews were a different species, and thus the German people shouldn’t mate with them:

<blockquote>
“If '''Nature''' does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an '''evolutionary''' higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.“
Chapter XI Race & People

</blockquote>
<blockquote>

“Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the preservation of the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is a primal necessity and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardly egoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development. For it is a necessity of human '''evolution''' that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favor of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than '''Nature''' and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.“
Chapter XI Race & People
</blockquote>

(Sorry for not including page references, I was using this online translation of ''Mein Kampf'': http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)

Now, I don’t speak German, so I couldn’t read the original. It is possible the word here translated as “evolution” comes from a different German word, which does not have the same scientific meaning.

However, even so, it’s clear that Hitler is using arguments of natural superiority to justify his racism.

But He also used arguments from faith, referring to God, Creation, and suggesting the Jews are somehow the work of the Devil.

<blockquote>
“Of course, one doesn't discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of '''God's''' image in''' His creation'''.“
Chapter XI War Propaganda
</blockquote>

Here, he argues that the Germans were the ones created in the image of God, and breeding with the Jews will corrupt them: <blockquote>
“for all the Jewish daughters of the department store proprietors are looked upon as eligible mates to co-operate in propagating '''His Lordship's stock'''.”
Chapter X Why The Second Reich Collapsed
</blockquote>

Here he talks of Jesus, and argues that Jesus was anti-semetic:
<blockquote>
And the '''Founder of Christianity''' made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time '''Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews''';
</blockquote>

Clearly, Hitler had a horribly, offensive, perverted understanding of the Gospel!!! It's revolting to even read it!!

But the point is, he used Christianity to justify his actions. Thus, the Evolutionists can make the exact same arguments against us, as we make against them.

So, anytime we say that the Holocaust was a “social effect of Evolution” they’re just going to say that it was a “social effect of Christianity”.

My Conclusion:

It’s clear from ''Mein Kampf'' that Hitler was nothing more than a nut job opportunist. He claimed to believe in anything that supported his own crazy racism.

I would also argue that we should remove the section on Hitlet’s belief’s in evolution. Because I would hate to go to Wikipedia, or some liberal site, and see them claiming that Hitler was a Christian, and it was his belief in Christianity that lead to the Holocaust.

I believe in honest debate. And to me, it’s dishonest to say that Hitler was an Evolutionist. He was no more and Evolutionist, than he was a Christian.

== Evolution Is Not Fundamentally Violent; Christianity Is ==

I would like to point out an incontrivertible fact:

Adolf Hitler regularly made appeals to God in Mein Kampf, calling upon Him to support his 'struggle' to 'rid the world of Jews'. I have read Mein Kampf, and studied Hitler's life, and have noted that Hitler's Christianity cannot be denied. He was an avid believer. However, I admit that many of his claims distorted fundamental Biblical teachings, though not by a wide margin, and his interpretation of the Bible was often based on desire, as opposed to reality. A caveat to this however was that much of what he wrote of, drawn from the Bible, in order to support his beliefs, was not distorted, and was impirically anti-semetic also.

As [[Christopher Hitchens]] points out in his book: [[god Is Not Great]], Mein Kampf was published at a time when the Catholic church was banning books at will, if they even slightly opposed orthodox Christian theological teachings, as presented by Roman Catholicism.
Therefore, given the fact that the Pope (who definitely was aware of, and did read) Mein Kampf, chose '''NOT''' to ban it, I would suggest that this implies - or, indeed, insists - that the book was met with approval by the Papacy.
As I have noted, Hitler called upon God - a Christian God - to support him in his efforts (what is written in Mein Kampf certainly does not suggest a holocaust is inconceivable to Hitler) and therefore, one would assume that if the Pope read it, he would be thoroughly incensed by it. Because the Pope read it, and didn't take action (any at all!) what are we to think but that he supported Adolf's desire to rid the world of so called 'Christ-killers'? (I personally would call God responsible for the death of Jesus Christ - if He exists, and there is no reason to assume He does.)

As for the matter of Hitler being an evolutionist, he certainly was aware of the theory, and adhered to it somewhat, but, just as I have said he did of Christian theology and doctrine, (which, if taken fundamentally - the only logicial way to do so - would itself demand the essential murder of millions of women by banning contraceptives and causing AIDS to flourish in Africa) he also warped the theories of Charles Darwin to conform to his own murderous desires. What Hitler wrote of was a 'will of nature', and that is something which implies that nature can make conscious decisions, while humanity is incapable of choosing what to do and what not to do for itself. This is not a fundamental Darwinist theory. Darwinism explains the facts about our origins. It does not limit, through this, our potential to go beyond them. Such people as Hitler, and the religious apologists on this site, as well as the person above me, who, in a desperate attempt to seem neutral, has blindfolded his or herself to numerous facts, vindicate more than anything else, Darwin's claim that:

"Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible scar of his lowly origin."

- Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 21:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Do you also deny that [[Josef Mengele]] was an evolutionist?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::Does it matter if he was an atheist? This post is bout Hitler, not that guy. Use him if you want, and if he was an evolutionary atheist, but he is not the same person as Hitler. Your argument is invalid. -Jones
::::Jones, were [[Hitler]] and [[Josef Mengele]] both Nazis and did they both believe in Nazi evolutionary racist ideology? If you evidence to the contrary Conservapedia would be most indebted to you if you shared it. I was curious whether or not you were very knowledgeable about this subject matter and I also wanted to know if your logic was unimpeachable. Of course, if you were merely a liberal deceitfully and illogically spouting off of about matters you know very little about, it will soon become apparent. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:13, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== ERV's ==

ERV's alone put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvF4q88YODU Endogenous Retroviruses: Life-Cycle and Ancestral Implications]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8kDzftu2w4 Endogenous Retroviruses: The Three Layers of ERV Evidence for Common Ancestry]
:::[[Endogenous retrovirus|Are you aware of any arguments against ERV's by creation scientists]]? If so, what are they? "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes to examine him." - King [[Solomon]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:01, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::What is a creation scientist? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 01:28, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::Hectoruribe, have you ever heard of search engines? They are really great things that enable you to answer very simple questions yourself. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:57, 17 April 2010 (EDT)
::::::::In fact, just search Conservapedia. We have an article on [[creation science]] that explains it quite well. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 16:59, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

== evolution and debate ==

evolution and debate: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html Research the facts surrounding the debate and cite it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:08, 1 January 2010 (EST)

== climategate and darwin doubting ==

Climategate and darwin doubting: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34935 Incorporate in the article perhaps. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:12, 1 January 2010 (EST)

== Definition ==

I'd just like to suggest that the definition of evolution from Merriam-Webster be changed to " a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory" I think that this would be more accurate, and could reduce the possibilty of accusations of "picking and choosing" --[[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 16:52, 22 February 2010 (EST)
::::Thanks, I put a .... after the Webster citation to be more precise/accurate. I thought the "also" addition didn't really add that much plus it would be less favorable in terms of the sentence's flow. The detractors of the evolutionary paradigm often assert that the evolutionary paradigm is "just a theory" or merely a hypothesis. Regardless, Webster does not consider the evolutionary paradigm to be a scientific law. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:14, 8 March 2010 (EST)

== Lamarckism ==

re: Lamarckism

Has anyone followed what is going on within the evolutionary community regarding this material: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Why Everything You Have Been Told About Evolution is Wrong][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:34, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

== Terribly biased? ==

Why does the entire article talk about evolution as if it is untrue when it is just valid as cell theory plate tectonic theory? [[User:Bradology|Bradology]] 10:17, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
::::Bradology, please let us know when you intend to stop engaging in [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] and start producing valid evidence for the evolutionary paradigm. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:52, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

== Regarding the cross burning ==

David Duke is a creationist. The KKK platform is that the "laws of our creator" should be used. While you can certainly argue convincingly that they are not following the bible closely I do not think you can argue that a political party that is fighting to remove Darwin from biology books is following an evolutionary ideology. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 16:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
::::Please feel free to provide convincing evidence that adequately addresses the footnoted material I provided. I have no desire to engage in dueling monologues. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:28, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

== Bias in Article ==

Bias in general is considered to be anything that influences one's behavior. Having a picture of Hitler at the very beginning of the article is clearly a sample of bias in this sense. Hitler is one of the most hated individuals to have ever lived, and understandably so. Showing an image of him at the beginning of the article gives any reader a predisposition to what they are about to read, as their emotional response will already have begun. As stated in earlier discussions, Hitler cannot simply be labeled an evolutionist. To associate him with evolution at the beginning of the article gives any reader a different view on what they might believe otherwise. Removing this picture as well as his quote, or at least placing it later in the article would resolve this. {{Unsigned | User:NewThought}}
:To deny Hitler was an evolutionist is to deny the reason he murdered over 6 million people. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:22, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
::Not the only reason, mind you, but the most important and influential reason nonetheless. [[User:DavidBG|[[User:DavidBG]]]] 13:45, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::User NewThought, if you don't want web pages to have an effect on your behavior or beliefs, I suggest you close your eyes after clicking on a link and also put your fingers in your ears just in case there is audio. Secondly, you have to better than merely state your positions if you want there to be changes, you have to make a good case for any changes.
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019 [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:52, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lysenkoism ==

There should be a link to [[Lysenkoism]] when the article mentions that pseudo-science. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:13, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:There already is. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 16:42, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

----

I would like to edit the quote of Dawnin in a letter to Gray [2]. It is wrongly quoted and is a fragmented sentence. The whole sentence is "It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
::::::Please elaborate on why you allege that it is wrongly quoted. By the way, are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Conservative, whether this user is atheist or not has nothing to do with the question. He's calling you out for quote-mining Darwin.
:::::::Oh, and user who left no signature—I wouldn't expect this article to be unlocked ever. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 13:03, 8 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::No real evidence was given for the quote mining allegation which I thought was quite unreasonable. I have found that atheists and evolutionists often engage in bluffing as far as their allegations and when you call their bluff no evidence is given by them for their allegations. Please read this article: http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Resident Transfan, are you an atheist? If you are an atheists, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Why liberals cannot point out factual errors ==

This article is almost entirely constructed of quotes. The only thing that the article says for the most part is that Person A said "B" and person C said "D" and the rest is made up of broad generalizations that aren't directly reliant on facts. A challenge could be raised that Person A knows nothing about subject B or that source D is biased in such a way as to compromise reliability but those wouldn't be direct challenges to the factual accuracy of the article. --[[User:AbbieM|AbbieM]] 18:31, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
::::Could you please do us a favor and give us a close percentage of content that is quotes and break it down by quotes from evolutionists and quotes from creation scientists. Also, how many of the footnoted sources did you read? Lastly, can you definitively show that the quotes were factually incorrect in terms of what they asserted (because I can see you did not do that)? By the way Abbie, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::It should be 'an atheist', not 'an atheists'. I appreciate the copy-and-paste message, however, and will be posting an essay on this in the near future.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:27, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::Alright, I've gone through the article and looked at quotes, dividing them into three categories. There are quotes from an Evolutionary point of view, quotes from a Creationist point of view, and quotes that are neutral - a news corporation reporting statistics, for example, would fall under this category. I determined the following percentages by the total number of words.

:::::Here's what I found: Approximately 45% of the article is comprised of quotes. The article itself contains just under 14,000 words, and of those just over 6,000 are quotes. 2400 words are from Evolution supporters, 3150 words are from Creationists, and 650 are from neutral sources (approximately). This means that approximately 17% of the article is comprised of quotes from Evolutionists, 23% from Creationists, and nearly 5% from neutral sources. That means 39% of the actual quotes are from Evolutionists, 51% from Creationists, and about 10% from neutral sources. This was all done by the number of words, not characters. Frankly, I find this percentage to be drastically high. For one thing, should Evolution not be better represented in its own article than Creationism? That is to say, should intellectually honest writers include more quotes from Creationists than Evolutionists in an Evolution article? Furthermore, the Evolution quotes that are included are, practically without exception, cherry-picked and taken out of context. Even in the sources from which they derive, they are rarely given appropriate context. This is a degree of laziness that should only be associated with liberals. We conservatives ought to be more up-to-point.

:::::Also, this entire article reeks of liberal wordiness. Does the article truly need to be this long? Perhaps a single, shorter page should be present to define Evolution, then we could have one page for those who support evolution, and another page for quotes/articles/criticisms of Evolution. That seems the best way to chop this article down to size.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 16:46, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::: Jacob, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Secondly, please put your quote claim statistics in a Excel or Open Office spreadsheet and post it somewhere for verification purposes. Then, please provide proof and evidence concerning each quote you allege to be in error. Lastly, evolutionism is so flagrantly in error that the article is concise. If we were to put the myriad of ways that evolutionism is errant, illogical, wicked and foolish; it would take many sets of CDs to do it justice. We just did our small part to offer something more concise. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:46, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::So, JacobP, the article is completely and totally wrong, and that is based solely on the ''number of words'' in the article? Golly gee...maybe the Bible is wrong because there's too many books in it; maybe the Declaration of Independence is wrong because Jefferson didn't format it properly; maybe the Constitution is wrong because a spell-check wasn't done on it; maybe ''Huckleberry Finn'' is wrong because Twain didn't check with the local school board first. Or maybe, JacobP, it is ''your logic that is wrong''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:45, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::I was told that my "JacobP" username was too similar to another users', so this is "JacobP" under a new username, "JacobPope14", the number being chosen at random. Now, to answer your question, I am not an atheist nor, if I were an atheist, would I claim to have 'proof' of atheism. As a Christian, I do not claim to have proof of Christianity either. My beliefs are not based on rational thought, but on faith, as is the intention of religion.
::::::::::However, regarding the verification of my study, where would you like me to post this information? Can you not merely read through the article, highlight all material that is a quotation, and compare the number of words to verify what the user above was stating? The article is very heavily comprised of quoted material. As a tabloid, perhaps, this would be appropriate, but I think more time ought to be dedicated to rewriting this article with factual information regarding the criticisms of Atheistic Evolutionary Thought, or AET, as I call it. While I do not doubt the credentials of the many people quoted, I highly doubt that any of them share completely identical views on the subject matter, so it may not be appropriate to compose an article that is very near to being more quotes than information itself.
:::::::::::Also, regarding Karajou, I never made a claim that the article was factually errant. I merely stated that it was wordy, taking up a large amount of space to convey a very small amount of actual information. My reference to 'number of words' was an admission to the fact that when I took a comparison of the article - breaking it down into quotes from Evolutionists, Creationists, and neutral sources - I used 'words' as opposed to 'number of quotes' or perhaps 'letters' when I ran the numbers. I find it rather odd that you would so readily attack another Conservative for what I can only guess is an assumption that I have liberal ideas, which I assure you is not the case. I merely want this article to be as factually accurate, concise, and accessible as possible to readers. Are those not admirable goals? [[User:JacobPope14|JacobPope14]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Jacob, I am sorry to hear that your beliefs do not have any basis in rational thought. Are you sure you are not an atheist? The apostles certainly appealed to being eyewitnesses and the Bible in Romans rightly declares that the creation testifies to the existence of God (Rom 1:20). Lastly, as far as your alleged study, there are plenty of free places to post material on the internet.(blogspot, etc. ). [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:56, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

== Why is user [[User:Conservative|conservative]] the only person allowed to edit this article? ==

I assume a few other admins are also allowed to but this article is pretty much completely written by [[User:Conservative|conservative]]. That doesn't seem fair at all. Isn't the whole point of a wiki to allow lots of other people to pitch in on it? How do we know who this [[User:Conservative|conservative]] person is, and how do we know they have the credentials to write an entire article on evolution accurately? It seems completely ridiculous to me that you guys block out everyone except for this one person on the subject of evolution. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 19:45, 29 July (CST)
:And you are...? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:49, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::Someone who reads this from time to time. But my point still stands. How is it fair to let only one person contribute to this article? Considering how much of this article focuses on creationists being silenced and censored in much of the media, you would think that this place, of all places, would welcome the input of others. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 20:36, 29 July (CST)
:::If the input is concerned with a theory, then I would welcome it; but if the input pushes evolution as "fact" then we won't allow it. We've had several members who tried ''forcing'' that viewpoint on us, ''forcing'' the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion, ''forcing'' their own religious beliefs on this site. Didn't work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying you should allow the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion at all. What I'm concerned about is that even if someone wants to add their own creationist/ID material to this article, they can't. The very most I'm guessing they could do is add it to the talk page and let conservative approve it. I don't mean to say anything bad about conservative but why should we leave those decisions SOLELY up to him/her for this one article? If you only let one person write an article on the entire subject of evolution it's bound to have some pretty major flaws. I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous how restricted this article is. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 11:18, 30 July (CST)

::::: A tiny percentage of articles on this site are locked (and later unlocked) due to vandalism. No locking is permanent, and any editor can earn administrative privileges through merit, which gives that editor the power to edit any page. Also, as you suggest, suggested edits to a locked page can always be posted on the talk page. So there are several ways that any editor can contribute to any page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
[[File:Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.jpg|thumbnail|right|275px|'''<big>[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]</big>''' ]]
::::::::Karajou, thanks for the laugh. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:26, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
Has any one here even read any of Charles Darwin's books? Or do you just google, cut and paste?
[[User:Tbunton|Tbunton]] 08:26, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes, I have Darwin's ''Origin of Species'' and ''Decent of Man'' in my house, part of Britannica's ''Great Books of the Western World'', published in 1991, etc etc. And if you look at many college essays or websites devoted to the ''support'' of evolution, you will find evidence of people who "just google, cut and paste." Like those above, you're playing the "evo-is-fact" game without bothering to even creak open your mind just for a little bit to see that what we present are the real facts of the matter. You learn more if you open your mind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:24, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.[1] In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[2][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:15, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why do we have three statistics about medical doctors in the opening section? ==

Medical doctors are not taught anything about evolution in school, nor are they required to know anything about it to practice. They are not experts in the field any more than computer scientists or waitresses. The three different statistics about medical doctors in the article just make it look bad, sort of... desperate. Maybe some statistics about biologists would be good instead? At least some kind of scientist.
:::Are you claiming that [http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science.shtml medical science] is not a science? And are you claiming that medical science does not utilize biology? If so, why? Lastly, you have not shown that macroevolution has existed or does exist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:23, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Evolutionists often claim that the applied science of medicine depends on evolution because it is derived from biology. Therefore, the explicit beliefs of medical doctors is certainly relevant.--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:35, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

== Poe's Law Talk Page ==

When I clicked on the Talk page for [[Poe's Law]], I was redirected to the page on Evolution. Why is that?

Also, in regards to the Poe's Law page itself, why is it filled with material regarding Creationism, even though Poe's Law is not about Creationism? --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 17:19, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:::JohnLee, please provide evidence and further explanation concerning your contentions about Poe's Law and creationism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:40, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

== genome and the evolutionary paradigm ==

Excellent research re: genome and the evolutionary paradigm: http://creation.com/genome-mania [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:41, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
==Suggested addition==

I would like to add some further points from Dr Behe's later book ''[[the Edge of Evolution]]'' to the section "Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position", specifically regarding how Dr Behe empirically proved that ''even if'' we accepted the huge assumptions made by evolutionists, ''their very own theory'' cannot account for the diversity of life we currently see. I guess this article is locked as it was a target for atheist trolls, so if it cannot be unlocked perhaps an administrator could add some more info regarding evolutionists lack of any answers to Dr Behe's findings? [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 17:27, 18 November 2010 (EST)
:::Write up some material and post it here. We can stick it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:29, 1 December 2010 (EST)

=A quote out of context=
Reference 262, quoting Eugenie Scott, is out of context and does not reflect the message of the general article. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 20:54, 30 December 2010 (EST)

:You have to prove your argument much better than that if you want to persuade anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::Mr. Schlafly, you beat me to it! AnaC, my comment was going to be similar to the above comment, if you wonder why I post no reply but indicate so on your talk page. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)
 
After reading the entire article, I came to the conclusion that the article points out several different reasons extraneous to the actual ideas being presented that would suggest a tilt in favor of the creationist discussion

Scott states:
""What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at
the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a
religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship.
That's the first problem. '''The audience that is most anxious to
'''come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that
'''supports the creationist.''' In the comparatively rare situation
where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of
good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the
audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every
effort to turn out their crowd."

The author also talks about debate format as a possible cause:
"The goal of a debate (I assume) is to
teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of
science. This is possible in a debate format, but '''it is difficult
'''to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.
....
How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this
matter? The creationist has made a simple declarative sentence,
and '''you have to deal with not an easily-grasped factual error, but
'''a logical error and a methodological error, which will take you far
'''longer to explain.''' As I was writing this, a community college
teacher called to tell me she had trouble convincing her students
they were made out of smaller parts! Now maybe not all audiences
are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept cell
theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It
didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms",
"radiometric dating doesn't work," etc.) means '''you have a bunch
'''more talking to do from the get-go'''."
.....
'''I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with
'''creationists, and have done so many times.''' In this format, it is
possible to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though
it seems odd to say it) not possible in a formal debate format. On
the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a
minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?" or something
similar, and show that their "model" is faulty. But in a debate,
the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist gallups
along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.

And finally, the author suggests a method for dealing with this format flaw:
With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of
information and is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to-
answer nonsense. The evolutionist at least has a fighting chance
to teach something about science and evolution.

'''Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they
'''have refused to debate.

It seems to me that way that the quote was used, it was meant to support the view that evolutionists do not want to debate out of the perceived inadequacy of their own arguments, but the author states that it is because of the structural flaws of the debate itself. The author states in the essay that the debater and his supporters think he did a good job, so in the end both parties think they did well, only that, according to the author, the creationist is perceived to have won because he has a lot more support from the audience.

Seen in this context, it would be more useful to use a different quote to support the point of view, since the author is not sincere in his expression that creationists win the arguments. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 22:51, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:But if we recruited heavily, without financial incentives and the like that are normally presented at scientific conferences (no need to hide it, I've seen the same actions taken at financial conferences) and with simply word of mouth and such, I highly doubt we'd have any tangible turn out or visible support if our beliefs were without merit. That's basic psychology and really just common sense, wouldn't you agree? While evolutionists and other such members of the "scientific community" need financial incentives, the promise of glory upon publication in like-minded journals, etc, we don't have this receptive atmosphere. Rather, we have only the weight of our arguments to persuade people. Perhaps this and not the "heavy recruitment" (which the author you mention, interestingly enough, ''does not'' detail in any way) is the reason for our support? Did that possibility occur to you? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:11, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::I do not understand what you are trying to say. I am simply quoting the author, and that is what he claimed--I have no knowledge of whether his claims are true nor the implications they may have if they were (or were not), nor do I know the motivations of the people who do go to the debates. But in any case, if true, the numbers would skew the result, regardless of the method of recruitment.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:28, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::My apologies if I wasn't entirely clear. My reasoning is this: the simple fact that, from personal experience, audiences that share are beliefs have no additional incentive, outside of hearing them validated, to come to such a debate, while evolutionists and other followers of Scott most likely ''do'' have additional incentives, whether they be financial, extra credit in classes, etc. The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that Eugenie Scott is one of our loudest and most vociferous critics. I trust that you're aware of her "participation" in the problems in Dover, where an issue that simply did not concern her suddenly became her business? Interestingly enough, she immediately published a book using her newfound publicity. Do my previous comments about entering a debate for financial incentive seem more clear with that example? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:38, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::::I do not know anything about the author, nor what she has chosen to do with her life. You stated that "The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant.", which I do not understand. I do believe that moral conviction is a much stronger motivator than any financial gain. From my experience, spiritual motivation is one of the strongest motivators that exists. However, I do not understand how this pertains to the fact that the author did not mean to "confess" that creationists win debates, since she does not believe that they were playing fair. The article does not address this, and gives the impression that this is what the author truly believes.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:53, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::::I don't have time at the moment to respond to this immediately as I'm on my way out the door, but if you have any pressing questions, you can email me (tyler.zoran@gmail.com, it's also on my user page) and I'll address them ASAP in the morning. Otherwise, I'll try to respond here tomorrow. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 00:00, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::In the meantime, though, research Eugenie Scott a bit more if you can. You'll find it very interesting, especially when you realize the perspective that influences everything she does. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 00:01, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Experiments on Evolution the article states: The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[11][12]

However this has indeed been observed in nature and experiments demonstrating evolution have been performed in a laboratory, such as Richard Lenski's bacterial studies. Lenski has made all his strains available and it would only be appropriate to repeat the experiments and find flaws in them before dismissing them outright.

: You can't be serious. If that research paper had been submitted to me by a college student, then I probably would have returned it ungraded for reasons explained long ago (and still available) on this website. (Also, please sign your postings using the signature button at the top of the edit space.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:45, 12 January 2011 (EST)

::::There are too many creationists in the audience! A classic case of a whiny evolutionist. Were you personally trained to "defend" evolutionism by [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|this fellow?]][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:18, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Fossil Record ==

The fossil record is not needed to prove the theory of evolution it stands on its own without the fossil record, in fact several animals such as soft bodied animals such as flatworms will not fossilize and leave fossil records, yet we know they exist and have existed in the past.

Many people simply do not understand what fossils tell us or what we can use them for. However to say they disprove the Theory of evolution is simply incorrect. After all even Gravity is just a theory

Separation of Pro/Anti Evolution.
My concern is that rather than detailing what constitutes Evolution and then later the criticisms of the theory, the form of the entire piece is about vaguely describing an evolutionary component and immediately refuting it as utter garbage and leaving it at that. Is it really so difficult to present one side without trashing it as soon as humanly possible. Also, Evolution being a key component in the development of racism is ludicrous. The Spanish Caste system was in existence long before the theory of evolution was introduced. I thought Conservapedia was about providing a place for truth, but what I see here is a place for people who only want the kind of truth that serves to reinforce their viewpoint. I fully support providing evidence which challenges the theory and yet I suppose giving Evolution fair representation is just a sign that I've been corrupted by liberal bias.
:Perhaps there is another way for you to contribute on this subject, but apart from this article. Try articles on natural selection, genetics, various plants and animals, geology, and so on, in which you can explain what main stream science says about them, as well as providing evidence refuting it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 10 February 2011 (EST)
::::[[Essay: As always, there is more work to be done|Evolutionist excusitis]] always happens when evidence is asked for. Please get a real worldview like biblical Christianity which [[Christian apologetics|has plenty of evidence to support it]] and not one you always have to make excuses for. As far as the history of racism in Europe, was racism solely the result of the Spanish Caste System or were there events contributing after? It seems to me as though you are offering a rather simplistic and inadequate commentary here. I would suggest reading material on [[Nazism]] and then contributing to that article. By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is correct. Generally speaking, atheists such as as [[Richard Dawkins]], are rather weak when it comes to [[historiography]] as can be seen [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:39, 10 February 2011 (EST)
== Theory? ==

Evolution is most certainly a fact. --[[User:TheSensei|TheSensei]] 21:51, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:This is what's called an argument by assertion. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:53, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:A "fact" ... just like the "fact" of [[global warming]]? Sorry, declaring something a fact does not make it so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:04, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== "Through natural processes alone" vs. "Darwinism" ==

In the article's third paragraph, I noticed an incorrect assertion based on the results of a poll. The article states that "60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone." Just because someone believes that man did not evolve 100% naturally (evolution), doesn't mean that they believe evolution was 100% supernatural. It is possible that they could believe in both Darwinism and intelligent design. [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 21:40, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

:Darwinism is taught and believed without any "supernatural" intervention. Also, Darwinism directly conflicts with basic [[Christian]] principles, such as [[Jesus]] redeeming the original sin of [[Adam]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:As Mr. Schlafly said, most believers in Darwinism don't believe in intelligent design; most believers in Darwinism are atheists. Also, ''doesn't mean they believe evolution was 100% supernatural'' implies that they all believe in evolution in the first place. Do you deny that there are medical doctors that don't believe in evolution at all? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 09:39, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists ==

I think its unfortunate that despite the generally good quality of the rest of the article, the concluding section reads like it was written by a grade school student. The entire world (with the exclusion of the middle east) consumes alcohol in some form or another, simply drinking beer in a pub is not a sign of poor health. In addition, up to 50% of the U.S. can be considered overweight or obese, since the apparent prevalence of atheism (not self-described, but defined as without belief in a god or life spirit) in the U.S. is on the order of 10%, there are far more obese and overweight theists than atheists. This section as it stands right now reads like an indictment of PZMyers and should be moved to the PZMyers page. In any case, attacking the validity of the theory based on the health of the proponent is a clear ad hominem and should at the very least be revised, since it has no place in an otherwise serious and even-handed article on the theory of evolution. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 22:25, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
:::DenisTR, thank you for indicating that the vast bulk of the article was fair-minded. Secondly, nowhere does the article indicate that because PZ Myers has not done his best to act in accordance with the best information that medical science has made widely available, therefore evolution is false. Lastly, I am guessing you are not a big fan of the introductory picture for [[atheism|Conservapedia's atheism article]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:42, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
[[File:Baron2.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|225px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
::::DenisTR, thanks for your input. I just added the following material to the Conservapedia evolution article: "In August 2009, PZ Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]].[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8280168] During the visit, Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO]" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:24, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::::DenisTR, by the way, the above material concerning PZ Myers and the Creation Museum has now also been added to the [[Atheism]], [[Atheism and obesity]] and the [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]] article. Once again, thank you for your input. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:17, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:The Town and The City

2012-09-12T21:00:21Z

JuanMotame: /* Title of article... */ Unnecessary

The Town and The City

2012-09-12T20:58:35Z

JuanMotame: Redirect to correct page

#REDIRECT [[The Town and the City]]

The Town and the City

2012-09-12T20:55:32Z

JuanMotame: Correct page title format

'''''The Town and The City''''' is the first published novel of the American author [[Jack Kerouac]] (born Jean-Louis Kerouac on March 12, 1922 - died October 21, 1969).

It is thought to have been inspired by his father's death.

The novel is Kerouac's longest. Before writing it he made a decision not to stop until he had completed 300,000 words. It was published in 1950 by Harcourt Brace.

Kerouac wrote the novel over a period of two years, keeping a diary that detailed much of his philosophical and literary troubles during this time. He relied upon the works of [[Fyodor Dostoevksy]], calling Dostoevksy's wisdom "the highest wisdom in the world" after he grew tired with the essays of the "too self-conscious" [[Leo Tolstoy]], for spiritual guidance.

It was aptly pointed out that Kerouac relied heavily upon the influence of [[Thomas Wolfe]] while writing the novel, and many comparisons can be made between it and the works of Wolfe. Many critics, however, suggested that Kerouac, far from merely emulating Wolfe, had surpassed him.

The novel is about a large family, (surname Martin) and features the five sons and three daughters of the family growing up, and being drawn from their semi-rural life in Galloway, to the symbol of capitalism and urbanity - the "melting pot" - that was New York, all in search of fame and identity.

Kerouac applied many of his own character traits to the sons of the family, though he can be most closely compared with Peter Martin. Much of the events and conversations that happen in the novel and to Peter have their parallel in Kerouac's own life. Several of his friends appear in the work, including the writer [[Allen Ginsberg]] and his own father, as George Martin.

[[The Town and The City]] takes the form of a bildungsroman. It is an impeccable first novel, written when Kerouac was in his early twenties, and was proceeded by Kerouac's most famous work [[On the Road]] - the most perfectly appropriate novel to serve this role.

His most conventional novel, it is also the most revealing. It allows one to assess the mind of Kerouac before he had developed (and subsequently become associated) with his own 'spontaneous prose' style and the Beat Generation movement he would come to lead (though not, entirely, voluntarily).
[[Category: literature]]
[[category:novels]]
[[category: American writers]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-09-12T20:50:18Z

JuanMotame: /* ... out of no extra material */ tricks aren't miraculous

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

First of all, without getting into uncertainties about measurement, anyone can get an approximation of pi as 3; anyone can take a string and measure the diameter of a circle or sphere and compare it to the circumfrence. That in itself is unremarkable. -RaymondW

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, waves aren't subject to gravity? As in, the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't (say) the Dirac spinor wavefunction of an electron subject to electromagnetic interactions in QED? Once we are able to quantize GR, won't we have something similar? (i.e. effects of gravity on the motion of some massive particle.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:23, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yes, waves are subject to gravity. A good example is gravitational lensing, in which gravity deflects the path of electromagnetic ''waves''. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity predict this, although only general relativity's predictions are consistent with the data. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gravity-induced+quantum+interference&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=DohdT7f1IoGogwelhfGhCw&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA In quantum mechanics gravity can also cause interference]. So, yes, gravity does indeed act on waves. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:35, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

:When you refer to the ice mummy, is this the famous one? ie. Ötzi? Because if it is, closer examination of the body has revealed that he actually died of a head injury, and an arrow embedded in his back, not the rain. Other evidence (the blood of three or so individuals other than himself on the corpse and his weapons) indicates that he was killed in warfare, and therefore is totally unrelated to the flood. I'll just double check the sources then, if no one else objects, I'll remove it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:48, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

::I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this. But let's review and discuss more information deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I found a few recent sources. A ''National Geographic'' article from November 2011 gives the cause of death as an arrow (and possibly a blow to the head), the website of the museum where he is kept [inhttp://www.iceman.it/en/how-oetzi-died] gives the arrow and head injury (this isn't a great source to be honest), a Guardian article from 2002 gives some details about the wounds [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/21/humanities.research1] and the abstract for a paper indicates that the arrow wound might have healed slightly before death[http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/26/rsif.2012.0174]. This is good enough for me. I will leave it a while anyway to see if anything else comes up.

::::Right, done it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 19:45, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Ok that information just got put back in. I have given a bunch of sources, all more recent than the source in the article, which give a very different explanation of what happened. I would appreciate if you would have a look at them and discuss the issue before reverting what I did. thanks a lot, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:29, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::Your additional information tends to reinforce the accuracy of the entry. The ice mummy was likely killed by something, it doesn't matter what, and then was remarkably preserved by a massive ice storm that was part of the [[Great Flood]]. Without the Great Flood, he would not have been so well perserved. I'll restore the information -- please feel free to add your cites to reinforce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::ok, I'll leave it then.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:18, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
:Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

:::::Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::They have the same [[Creator]], so if one searches hard enough then a few similarities can be found, but fundamentally they were created on different days for different purposes, and are very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Parthenogenesis

2012-09-12T07:01:34Z

JuanMotame:

'''Parthenogenesis''' (Greek: ''παρθενος γενεσις'', "[[virgin]] birth") is the term in science in which certain [[species]] of [[plant]] and [[animals]] can [[reproduce]] without the need of fertilization by a [[male]].

In 2012, scientists discovered wild-caught snakes, cottonmouth and copperhead, were capable of parthenogenesis. The "wild-caught" here is significant as the phenomenon had already been shown in captive snakes, but was thought to be mainly a result of that captivity.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19555550</ref>

==Links==
*[http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Parthenogenesis/ Bio-Medicine.org definition]
[[Category:Biology]]
==References==
{{reflist}}

Sam Walton

2012-09-05T06:06:16Z

JuanMotame: {{reflist}}

'''Sam Walton''' (1918-1992) was an American entrepreneur best known for founding [[Wal-Mart]], the first of which opened in Bentonville, [[Arkansas]] in 1962. Prior to this, he had operated a number of Ben Franklin discount stores along with several members of his family. While starting out with modest means, Walton went on to become a billionaire, and the richest man in America according to Forbes magazine in 1985.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/walton2.html</ref>

In 1983, Walton founded Sam's Club, a warehouse club store affiliated with Wal-Mart in which customers must purchase a membership. Sam's Clubs are marketed toward small businesses.

Walton continued to have an active role in his company as CEO until 1988, and continued to stay active until his death. He was awarded the medal of freedom shortly before his death.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0772005.html</ref>

Walton also quietly lived his [[Christian]] faith, giving scholarships for foreigners to attend Christian universities and setting up a yearly endowment to help spread the gospel through the [[Presbyterian]] Church shortly before his death.<ref>http://www.savewalmart.com/introduction.asp</ref>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Walton, Sam}}
===References===
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:Christians]]

User talk:Ed Poor

2012-09-02T22:54:06Z

JuanMotame: /* My condolences */ new section

Archive:
[[/1|1]]
[[/2|2]]
[[/3|3]]
[[/4|4]]
[[/5|5]]
[[/6|6]]
[[/7|7]]
[[/8|8]]
[[/9|9]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[/13|13]]
[[/14|14]]
[[/15|15]]
[[/16|16]]
[[/17|17]]
[[/18|18]]
----

[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]



== Writing Plan ==

Hello Mr. Poor,
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)

== Request ==

Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)

== Image Upload Request ==

Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==

My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.

What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".

I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.

Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.

The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.

By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.

:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]].

:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

==The anti-Semitism of liberals==
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Please help! ==

Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

== Nice speed on reverts ==

You beat me to every one! Nicely done--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for noticing me ==

I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush ==

I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Technical question ==

I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki>
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.

To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.

But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== madonna ==

Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)

:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that.

:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==EdBot==
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?

:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== A request concerning recent events ==

Hi Ed,

I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.

Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)

Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)

You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==[[User:MRellek]]==
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion.

:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==

If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revert ==

Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Farewell ==

Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.

:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."

:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.

:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2.

:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

==Pontiac==
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name.

:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)

:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
==Pictures==
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Edit conflict ==

Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== signature ==

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== like wikipedia? ==

i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== Meat Loaf ==

I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==

Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page.
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sid 3050 ==

Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question.

:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.

:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship.

:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Misled by RonLar ==

I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.

*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...

*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:

:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''

*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.

*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic...

*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!

*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected.

::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides.

::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}
:::::and
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.

:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==

In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)

I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?

If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Language ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")

First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Um ==

[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.

"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.

The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Senior Admin assistance ==

Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.

I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.

Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.

:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.

:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .

::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.

::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== BrentH's block ==

I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== This is an encyclopedia. ==

You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer.
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== King George I ==

The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

=="New Ordeal"==
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

== Block of AugustO ==

I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:

''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''

::*I can't think of any rule which I broke
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)

''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''

::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.

''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''

::*Here, I obviously failed.

1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).
::*tried
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.
::*tried
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.
::*tried

''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.

''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page.

::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

*Thanks for the unblock!
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:

Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.

When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.

As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Abortion issue ==

It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

==Thanks for the change but==
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.

Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]

Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)

:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

== a few messages to you ==

There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping.

:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== A message to you from Cipe ==

Fixing a MediaWiki message:

Hello,

Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.

Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?

:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].

I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==

I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==

Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== apology. ==

Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

:Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== On Personal Attacks ==

Dear Mr. Poor,

As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987753&oldid=987715], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987827&oldid=987777], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987956&oldid=987955], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=990739&oldid=990566]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.

I think it is very appropriate to make '''relevant''' comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life '''personality''' that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki '''behavior'''.

Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement '''without going into personality details'''. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.

Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user '''behavior''' at Conservapedia.

Thank you for reading this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules."

:Nothing wrong with '''friendly''' personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Hey Ed ==

I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

==Tehpwn3r==
'User names based on your real name or initials are '''preferred'''' does not state that you will be blocked. [[User:Conservative|Also]].--[[User:Wishnaka|Wishnaka]] 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

*Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.

== Randall7 ==

If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering,
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:If you unblock him, you're responsible. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

::I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks for pointing out the typo.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
==Michael Baumgartner==
Dear Mr. Poor,
Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of [[Michael Baumgartner]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054 the Wikipedia article]. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore [[Michael Baumgartner]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*:Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

== My condolences ==

On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Ed Poor

2012-09-02T22:52:51Z

JuanMotame: Undo revision 1003575 by EdYourHeroIsDead (talk)