Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Big Bang theory

2007-05-21T18:12:15Z

M: /* Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views */

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific hypothesis explaining the creation of the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Bing Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Most [[Atheist]]s believe in the Big Bang theory.

Many scientists who belive in the Big Bang Theory are [[Evolutionist]]s, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>, though few creationist criticisms are found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Biology

2007-05-19T21:19:56Z

M: /* Evolution */

Uh, what if I wanted to write an article about biology, what am I suppose to do with this? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 19:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:You get authoritative sources, like college textbooks, and use them as a guide when you write your own article. The biology terms that are there can either be used for the article in some way, or deleted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Evolution==

:4. Evolution. By the processes of [[natural selection]] and [[genetic drift]], the inherited traits of a population will change from generation to generation, sometimes leading to the arising of new, distinct populations from the 'parent population'. This is often included with [[common descent]], but in most fields of biology the latter does not arise; however, evolutionary theory itself is invaluable in agriculture, study of disease and research on genetics.

::Let's stick to facts and use terms everyone understands. Were you referring to [[mutation]]? I've heard that this has been observed in laboratories, and that there is a scientific theory about it.

::As for [[common descent]], I'm unaware of any proof having been offered for this conjecture. Let's make a bright distinction between scientific theories (which have been proved or are at least "falsifiable") and conjecture (see also [[Pseudoscience]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Would the section be OK if the reference to common descent were omitted? Like I said - it's usually lumped in with evolution in the common mind, but most biology only uses evolution (with common descent a question of paleontology and such).--[[User:M|M]] 17:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-19T14:26:28Z

M: /* Why the reversion on the "Jesus Christ" article? */

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 200px; color: white; padding: 0;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; padding-left: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 0.1em;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka: [[User:AmesG/PanelEvolution|Fearless Leader]]) talk page</div>
<div style="font-size: 70%; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em;">This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.</div>
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]]</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; background-color: #fff; width: 85%; margin-left: 0; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em; color: black;">

==Intelligent design lock==
hi, I tried making a suggestion for the structuring of the ID page about a month ago and listed my comments on the talk page. I haven't received any replies indicating problems with my suggestion (see Evidence -> Support). Can you update the main article please? --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 14:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Uploads ==

Dude, what is the deal with [[Special:Upload]]? I can ''never'' cause it to function appropriately. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pic==
LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== User Boxes... ==

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Love==
I think the new look of your user page is simply ''fabulous!''.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

Ben... you're a riot [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Responded via email... dislike it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So you prefer Anarchy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock Myk==
I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Change to the T-Rex page==
CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Missing Links ==

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good block ==

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== request ==

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Could you please revert the [[macroevolution]] article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with [[evolution]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[CP:RFA]] ==

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anti Gun ==

I'm anti-gun, however I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. I do not believe that academic discourse can progress without competing ideas. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: That is awesome! It's great to see some thinkers around here. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edit War with Conservative ==

CPWebmaster, I was upholding the decision of the panel. See the discussion on Philip J. Rayment's talk page [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#question_regarding_pro_evolutionary_books_being_added_to_TOE_article here]. The Panel approved a version of the article ''with'' the free online text of "The Origin of Species", though Conservative removed the link merely eight minutes before the Panel made it's decision (Conservative removed book at 18:21 April 9, decision made 18:29 April 9); clearly too short of a time, as the panel had been deliberating for quite some time. Andy has also made his anti-censorship view very explicit. Other sysops had also supported the inclusion of the book, as it is the single most relevant book on the topic that exists. The pro-inclusion sysops provided their reasons and justifications, though Conservative kept reverting without ''any'' justification, or discussion (except for an attempt to draw the conversation off topic at [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]). Perhaps you should warn [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] to not work against what has been made explicitly clear. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't. Please do not get into any more revert wars with Conservative or any other user. Thank you. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=96144 Here] is where the panel says that addition of references and further reading books is acceptable. And please, warn the other party in this edit war as well, as he is equally guilty. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Forgive me, but it is hard to avoid an edit war when you cite justifications for your edits, ''prove'' that you are undoubtedly correct, and the [[User:Conservative|other user]] provides no justification and runs from answering any kind of question. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT) 
::::What other revert wars is [[User:Hojimachong| Hojimachong]] engaged in?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 20:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::None, at the moment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I fully understand that edit wars are bad to engage in, and should be avoided. But I think you are missing my point as well; There was evidence to back up a specific view, posted on the talk page, and told to Conservative even ''before'' he removed the books (He ''asked'' Philip J. Rayment about removing the books. Philip said he shouldn't; Conservative did it anyways). I think Conservative needs to be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form; I don't see him being warned for the edit war. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Once again, Conservative made a change against the panel, consensus, and Andy. When is this ''vandalism'' going to be taken note of? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, I want to highlight two things that you said:
* "''I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case.''"
* "''You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time.''"
Okay, perhaps Hojimachong has been involved in other edit wars; I haven't checked. And if true, and if that is not true of Conservative, then perhaps you do have a defence for what is otherwise a prima-facie case of favouritism. But you also seem to be "dodging the bullet" yourself. On Wikipedia, ''both'' editors would have been given blocks twice over for this particular incident, and ''both'' editors are "wasting everyone's time". You also said:
* "''Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't.''"
That's precisely the point. I "changed" (added) some references (books for further reading), and Conservative started the revert war (in the sense that he made the first reversion) by removing them on the grounds that they were against the Panel's decision. You have here acknowledged that they are not against the Panel's decision, indicating that it was Conservative who was in the wrong, yet it is Hojimaching that you are warning.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree with Conservative's worldview, and disagree with some of Hojimachong's. And it was Conservative that first suggested that I be a sysop. It pains me to have to take a stand against him on this, but I believe that truth and justice  warrants it in this case.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well spoken, Philip. For me, this all fell under the "two wrongs don't make a right" consideration. Those who have been around more than a month know I have publicly disagreed with Sysop Conservative many times. Not on ideological or political grounds, but because of this absolute unwillingness to engage others, or even answer their questions. And I don't agree with blocking people without some explanation, if only to fellow Sysop's. He has gotten much better at responding, however. All of the points above, raised by everyone don't make engaging in a squalid public fight over editing, conducted by Sysop's, right. It is hard to preach to editors not to do something Administrators are constantly doing, eh? No matter if it is reverting each other's edits, or reverting blocks, it is the same principle; "Do as I say, not as I do". I think that is more what the Webmaster's point was, knowing full well the danger of supposition. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with my watchlist ==

I appear to be having problems with my watchlist. Occasionally I notice articles that are changed are not appearing on my watchlist. It appears to be articles which have been protected. Protected articles that I put on my watchlist, or that I edit, are okay, but articles that I already have on my watchlist that are then protected don't appear, at least sometimes (until I edit them again). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== small favor ==

I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: He's not blocked. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Changing User Name ==

I'm wondering how I can change my User Name. Can it be done? If so, how? Please let me know. --[[User:Jtpaladin|Jtpaladin]] 21:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: It would probably be best to just create a new account. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 23:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Any bureaucrat can handle a name change for you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My contributions ==

I think there's something wrong with my contributions, all edits prior to today seem to have vanished [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Aschl%D0%B0fly link]. Would you be able to look into it for me? Thank you and God bless. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
: No there isn't. Look back in the recent changes for the creation of a new 'User:Aschlafly'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers Here]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

So is it possible to ban the fake ASchlafly and the fake Conservative before they do more damage to the site and to the reputations of the real things?--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sure, as long as the person doing it know what they are doing and pays attention. Oh................well...........it would normally be possible but after all SYSOP promotion here has little to do with understanding what the heck you are doing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't know. No mods seem to be currently active. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==thank you==

thank you for fixing my talk page. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: you're welcome [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to wombat ==

Please see the talk page and explain your reversion. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image libs ==

Are we using GD or ImageMagick? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Merge==

Thanks for this merge. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=155595&oldid=155117]
What other maintenance tasks can we do together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: It seems that there are a '''lot''' of templates that are not being user and/or are worthless. Going through those would be good. Thanks for the help! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I deleted 4 unused templates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you also remove them from [[help:templates]] please? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I was addressing that request to Ed, but thanks anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, a few of those deleted templates were either in use (although in only one or two pages). Also, a few were designed to be used with Subst:, which means that they aren't "in use" but may still be required. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== MediaWiki stuff ==

I have two suggestions:

# You really should install [http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking interwiki links] to Wikipedia, it would make life easier.
# [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:%24wgExtraNamespaces Extra namespaces], i.e. "Debate:" would also be helpful. Currently, all debate pages reside in the Project namespace, which, to a techie like myself, is physically painful :).

--[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's the point of the interwiki links if we are normally not supposed to link to Wikipedia anyway?
:I agree with the second suggestion.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:29, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I agree with Philip. Another Sysop on Friday found several pictures linked to article pages here, from WP. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Kewl. Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Once more thing: for a wiki of this description, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight Oversight] might be quite useful. For instance, if Icew*dge decides to use an edit summary of "F*** F*** F*** F*** F***", it can be hidden, so people won't stumble across it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:47, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh yes, and you should add a [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ImageMagick#Licensing licensing menu] to the upload page. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spam Filters... ==

My talk page, somewhere on it is the ice name, and spam filter is not allowing me to save my changes with it on there.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:05, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Fixed it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, now, you fixed it on my page, but don't the filters need tweaking really? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Just put I**W*****. We really don't want them to be able to post that anywhere on the site. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Unless that is case-sensitive and excludes spaces, I can easily imagine that having too many false positives. By the way, you beat me to ban the latest incarnation of said vandal by a very few seconds! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Our two Philip's are like dynamos today! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::I used Unicode… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Something has indeed changed, for I cannot remain logged in as I used to. I didn't change my comp settings, but now being idle for 15 + minutes, I must log in again. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Changing Signature ==

I can't figure out how to change my default signature and decided you would be the most appropriate person to ask.--Favor 19:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Go to [[Special:Preferences]], or click the "my preferences" link at the top of the page. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Problem with spam filter ==

It is now impossible to post in a section that contains the signature of a certain vandal who's signature I cannot post because the spam filter wont let me.--[[User:Favor|Favor]] 00:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What I recommend you do it go ahead and remove all instances of that name on said page. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, replace all instances with I**W*****. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Why did you delete the article on "Why South Africa Sucks" ==
Please comment on my talk page. Did you delete it, or did you move it? {{unsigned|John99}}

I hope you won't mind. I created another article of "[[Why South Africa Sucks]]". The reason being that there is to much information available on this blog to warrent further expantion on the [[South Africa]] article. This website may be used as a source of information on South African Issues. --[[User:John99|John99]] 12:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I NOTED THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES WERE DELETED:

* [[The Right Perspective]] http://www.therightperspectivepodcastblog.blogspot.com/

* [[African Crisis]] http://www.africancrisis.org/default2.asp

* [[Crime Expo South Africa]] http://www.crimexposouthafrica.net/

Thanks for your understanding. All these articles were sabotaged on Wikipedia.

==Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect==
CPWebmaster, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not the correct name for the neanderthal. It is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are different species. Please correct.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: That is incorrect, they are not different species. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:CPWebmaster, you are wrong. Please provide your proof. According to Taxonomy they are different.
::http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
::http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoneaderthalensis.htm
::--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Both of those are false, biased sources of information. Read [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/worthy-ancestors this] please. Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: AIG is unbiased? You are saying that AIG is more valid than the Smithsonian Institution? Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is a contraversial subspecies of the Homo sapiens whereas Homo neanderthalensis is the accepted species for the neanderthal. The correct way of listing taxonomy is genius and then species not genius, species then subspecies. So by your way of resoning this should be listed under Homo sapiens. Anyone one with a little biological taxonomy traning would see this as a farse.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: When it comes to origins, AIG is obviously more valid than the Smithsonian. I am aware that Homo neanderthalensis is the "accepted" species, but this is merely hopeful thinking by evolutionists. In reality, Homo neanderthalensis is HUMAN. I placed it under a sub-species because I did not want it to conflict with the human article. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::If homo neanderthalensis is human as you said above, then why not list it with Homo sapiens? CPWebmaster, I can not understand why you would perceive AIG as more valid than the Smithsonian. There are thousands more scientists working and submitting to the Smithsonian than AIG. This provides a more critical environment for research. AIG struggles to have PhDs write articles within the scope of their discipline. How many times have you seen a physicist write about biology at AIG? The point is that if you plan to use taxonomy to describe an organism then you must follow taxonomy rules to describe the organism. Meaning if you wish to say that Neanderthal was a subspecies of Homo sapiens then you need to list Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Otherwise you need to place it back with homo neanderthalensis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Your source is also overstepping its bounds by claiming that Neanderthals and humans are both able to speak in the same manner. This is a mater still under debate by most physical anthropologists. There are also many skeletal differences between the two species. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Do I even have to mention that based on a taxonomy the way this article is listed Neanderthal is of the same level as European, African, Asian, ect. If this is the case then why did they die out while Europeans thrived?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Are we going to have an answer from you about this? We are still waiting for your explination.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: No, I made my case, that's what I'm sticking to. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::So you are going to use scientific naming (taxonomy) without following taxonomy rules? This does not make for a very reliable article then. You are misrepresenting a classification system.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Creating a new path.... ==

Help talk page....[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help_talk:Contents#Creating_a_path_to_essay_of_a_subject_new_to_Conservapedia]] Would you help that guy out? Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Why the reversion on the "Jesus Christ" article? ==

I'm sorry, was there something wrong with my edits? I was trying to give the article a more neutral tone...I mean, it's not like Jewish or atheist conservatives believe that Jesus was the son of God.--[[User:M|M]] 15:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: I could think that 2+2=6, but that does not make it true. Conservapedia presents the truth first. If you would like to add a section to the bottom about how Jews do not accept Jesus as the Son of God then go ahaid. Thanks, [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 15:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::I was under the impression that Conservapedia presented the ''facts'' first, not any given religion. Stating blankly that Jesus is the Son of God is a pretty darn unsupported assertion, isn't it? Isn't the whole point of faith-based religion that we'll find out for sure after death?--[[User:M|M]] 17:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Personally, I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, it is a FACT that Jesus is the son of God. I have no doubt in my mind that He is, I don't have to wait until I die to know for sure. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The fact that you believe something to be infallible does not make it so. You cannot accurately say that Jesus is the Son of God; from what you said, you can accurately say that you BELIEVE that Jesus is the Son of God, because you believe that the Bible is God's infallible word. I can say that I believe that "The Once and Future King" is literally true, but that wouldn't justify my claiming that Arthur IS the true king of England.--[[User:M|M]] 10:26, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

== Deletedpage ==

I didn't delete it; I haven't touched it, except a locking (for obvious reasons) when it was created, on April 15. According to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Deletedpage log], TK deleted it in his rush to get the vandals, I'd let it go. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Looks like Hojimichong protected it. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Australia ==

Hi, why did you revert my edits to Australia? --[[User:Incognito|Incognito]] 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:I was wondering the same thing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Too much use of the word football? He must be a soccer supporter.[[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 12:51, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

Please direct new Sysops here: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Editing quirk ==

Apologies if this is not the right place but is there a setting I need to change to avoid automatically going into edit mode when I click on a user's name to see what they have done? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:07, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Please ignore, it seems to have stopped now. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Biology

2007-05-19T14:21:12Z

M: This page needs some serious help...I'll come back later and try to add more, if I can.

'''Biology''' is the scientific study of life.

It encompasses in it several fields, including medicine, botany, and zoology; in addition, such studies as ecology and biochemistry fall under the purview of biology. Like [[physics]], it is a blanket term for a vast branch of the [[physical science]]s.

==Principles==

The study of biology works from several basic foundations:

1. The cellular theory of life. All life is composed of at least once cell, which undergoes the classical processes of cellular life; the cell is the basic unit of all macrobiotic life. The chemical composition of all cells in nature is similar, and all existing cells have emerged from prior cells through the processes of cellular division and [[mitosis]].

2. Genetic theory. All cells encode their genetic information in the form of DNA, the fundamental component of genes. These genes transfer the physical, and often psychological, traits of one generation of organism to the next.

3. Homeostasis. All living organisms will attempt to reach some form of dynamic equilibrium with their environment - both through the metabolism of individual creatures, and the population dynamics of whole populations.

4. Evolution. By the processes of [[natural selection]] and [[genetic drift]], the inherited traits of a population will change from generation to generation, sometimes leading to the arising of new, distinct populations from the 'parent population'. This is often included with [[common descent]], but in most fields of biology the latter does not arise; however, evolutionary theory itself is invaluable in agriculture, study of disease and research on genetics.

==History==

More than ten thousand years ago, Mesopotamia showed evidence of the domestication of goats, sheep, and grains; while this was most likely unintentional, at least at first, it can be placed as the first point at which human study of the nature of life itself began. From these humble beginnings, all of modern biology eventually flourished.

==Fields of Study==

==Modern Research==

[[Category:Biology]]

Natural science

2007-05-19T14:06:02Z

M: Biology is pretty well-known, too, I would think.

'''Physical science''' is the branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts in order to formulate general laws about the natural world, and the methods by which this study is carried out, such as the ''[[scientific method]]''.

Scientific study relies on specific, fairly well-defined classifications, collectively known as the aforementioned scientific method. In one form or another, it is the means by which all scientific research is conducted.

The best known physical sciences are [[astronomy]], [[biology]], [[physics]] and [[chemistry]].

== Beginnings ==

Although some early [[civilization]]s, particularly [[Ancient Greece|Greece]], developed some scholarship, it was not until the 1500s in [[Europe]] that science proper developed. This was due to the prevailing [[Christian]] world view, that taught that the creation was not itself Divine, but was the product of a consistent Creator who didn't change His creation, such as the laws of physics, on a whim.

Loren Eiseley:
{{QuoteBox|The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.<ref>L. Eiseley: ''Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It'' (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961), quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Evolution'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 Chapter 1].</ref>}}
Rodney Stark:
{{QuoteBox|...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.<ref>Stark, 2003, [http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7501.html introduction].</ref>}}
Indeed, many of the early scientists, such as [[Galileo]], [[Johannes Kepler]], and Sir [[Isaac Newton]] were people who believed in the literal truth of Genesis and who based their science on their belief in a Creator.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/ Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

== Types of science ==

Science can be subdivided into two categories, ''operational science'' and ''origins science''.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, and Matthews, Michael, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3256 Chapter 1]</ref>

'''Operational science''' deals mostly with things in the present, which scientists are able to observe, measure, and test. If, for example, someone claims that water boils at 110 degrees Celsius at sea level, you can test for yourself to see if that is really true (and discover that it's not).

'''Origins science''' deals with things in the past. Scientists do not have the past to observe, measure, and test, so the conclusions of historical science must be somewhat more tentative than empirical science. If, for example, someone claims that birds evolved from dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, it is difficult to formulate an experiment to effectively support or deny this claim. Because of this, origins science tends to function through observation of historical records, as well as extrapolating current data (which ''can'' easily be experimentally validated) into the past. In addition, it is common for theories to be tested on their adherence to the available evidence; for example, the discovery of ''Tiktaalik'' in the predicted strata for a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html</ref>

In some cases, such as astronomy, the distinction between the two becomes somewhat muddled; strictly speaking, current observations of most astronomical phenomena are dealing with the far-distant past, but experiments and observations are easily performed - it is common for a theoretical prediction to be compared with observed data.

== Bibliography ==

Stark, Rodney, ''For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery'', Princeton University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0691114361.

== Notes ==

<references />

[[Category:Science]]

Evolutionism

2007-05-15T21:30:38Z

M: This page needs some major work...

{{split|Evolutionist}}
An evolutionist is someone who promotes a theory of evolution, particularly a theory which claims that people, animals or any species of life "evolved" without any [[divine intervention]].

In the United States, 99.8% of U.S. biologists are of the opinion that the [[Theory of Evolution]] is the most credible theory explaining the variety of life on Earth and as such are called evolutionists by the pro-Creation side. <ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref>

Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[worldview]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a worldview unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other worldviews including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.

:''"Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe..."''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
:<code>'''God exists (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "God exists" idea ''Creationism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Creation''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among Theistic Evolutionists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal Evolutionist God'''
:<code>'''There is no personal/involved God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no personal God" idea ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>
'''Personal Evolutionist God'''
:<code>'''There is a personal/involved God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "personal God" idea ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or worldview that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation.
:<code>'''There is no God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea ''Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The terms ''evolutionist'' and ''evolutionism'' use the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who use scientific grounds to support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionist, and the terms have been in common use for a century. There seems to be no such objection to the term ''anti-evolutionism''. This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception, {{fact-political}}
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[worldview]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of worldviews, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective worldview behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with biblical Young Earth Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).

:''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen" />''

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

Taking the bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes'''<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>:
*''"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''
*''"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''
*''"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''
*''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''
*''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''
'''''Evolutionism does not involve faith'' quotes''':
*''The concept of faith does not exist in other major religions''<ref>A. Schlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=12708]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' websites that are pro-theory of evolution.''
:'''''Critical''' websites that hold the position that the scientific theory of evolution requires faith and belief just like any other religious system.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview]
'''International Science bodies'''
* [http://national-academies.org/evolution/ National Academy of Science]
* [http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/ Royal Society of Science UK]
* [http://www.cnrs.fr/ Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique]
* [http://www.rsc.ca/index.php RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada]
* [http://www.academy.ac.il/ Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities]
* [http://www.interacademies.net/?id=4268 swiss academies of arts and sciences]
* [http://www.royalacademy.dk/pres_e.htm Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters]
* [http://www.akademienunion.de/english.html Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities]
* [http://www.scj.go.jp Science Council of Japan]
* [http://www.academyofathens.gr/ecportal.asp?id=635&nt=18&lang=2 The Academy of Athens]
* [http://www.interacademies.net/?id=4304 royal academy of exact, physical and natural sciences of spain]
* [http://www.kva.se/ Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences]
* [http://english.cas.ac.cn/eng2003/page/S&T/Introduction.htm Chinese Academy of Sciences]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}
===Other===
'''Uses of the term ''Evolutionism'' on the Internet'''
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Evolutionism&oldid=74633 CreationWiki]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolutionism&oldid=115346043 Wikipedia]

[[Category:Materialism]]
[[Category:Naturalism]]
[[Category:Humanism]]

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-15T21:27:43Z

M: /* Why the reversion on the "Jesus Christ" article? */

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-15T19:16:30Z

M: Why the reversion on the "Jesus Christ" article?

Jesus Christ

2007-05-15T18:52:49Z

M: Let's not take Christian faith as a statement of historical fact, please; not all conservatives are Christian.

[[Image:Christ.jpg|thumb|right|700px|The Christ Redeemer Statue in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]]

'''Jesus Christ''' was a Jew born during the occupation of Judea by Rome. He is, according to most branches of the [[Christian]] religion, the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the expiation for humanity's sins and to ransom us from death.<ref>1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19.</ref> By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and became man in an event known as the Incarnation. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''".

According the Gospels, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. Christianity believes Jesus to have been the Christ (Greek: Χριστός), or Messiah ([[Hebrew]]: 'משיחא'), prophesied in the Old Testament; he proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, various miracles are attributed to him. However, Judaism and Islam do not believe Jesus to have fit that role.

Jesus founded the Christian religion, choosing twelve apostles to participate in his mission, and commissioning them to “preach the Kingdom of God and to heal”.<ref>Luke 9:2.</ref>

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christianity holds that it was through his redemptive death, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God, expiating Original Sin.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> Christian scriptures state that on the third day after his death, Jesus physically rose from the grave, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Christianity believes that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as a mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. '' (John 3:16).

==Jesus' Life==

In the [[Gospels]] of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] and [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] ([[Judea]]) to [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], who at the time was a virgin, by the [[Holy Spirit]]. The [[Gospel of Luke]] relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce to her that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). An order of [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], that a survey of the [[Roman Empire]] should be made caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a manger for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[Angel|angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi", ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests), who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]]; this has led to the incorrect assumption that three Magi were present, whereas the actual number is not given) after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home is stated to have been in the town of Nazareth in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood, to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel. Luke's Finding in the Temple (Luke 2:41–52), where Jesus impressed the priests by discoursing in [[Old Testament|scripture]] with them, is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life mentioned in any of the canonical Gospels.

The Gospel of Mark begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[Apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and the [[Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]] the recognized Jewish religious authorities who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the Garden of Gethsemane and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|right|thumb|300px|Jesus Christ (Conceptualization)]]

Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demand his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, but ultimately condemned Jesus to [[crucifixion]]. Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit. The Bible goes on to record His resurrection on the third day, appearing before his disciples, and his later ascension into heaven as His disciples watched.

==The Historical Jesus==

Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C. due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

Occasionally non-historians deny the [[Historicity of Jesus|existence of Jesus]], <ref>"Book Article Denies the Existence of a Historical Jesus Figure" [http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/12694/ NewswireToday ] </ref>
<ref>"David H. Lewis [debates] the historicity of Jesus, arguing that New Testament and contemporaneous writings give very little evidence that Jesus actual ever lived." [http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517040.htm Escaping the Gravitational Pull of the Gospels] </ref>
but few scholars take this seriously.
[[Tacitus]], the Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref>, and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him. <ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref>. Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of the existence of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'' which discusses many historical sources which mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''The Case for Christ'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Defense of the resurrection of Jesus ==
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] Gary Habermas is considered the foremost apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus. <ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html</ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf </ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html</ref> Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher [[Anthony Flew]] regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of [[Philosophy|philosophers]] judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]] and [[Michael Horner]]. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</ref><ref>http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref>

Legal scholars such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]] and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm</ref><ref>http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref> Defenders of the resurrection of Christ also cite many distinguished legal authorities regarding the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm</ref>

Another reason to believe the resurrection is the fact that many people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus voluntarily preached the news of this despite extreme persecution, and died for their efforts. Unlike the early members of most religions, these people had the opportunity to be direct eyewitnesses to what verified the claims of Christianity.

== See also ==

*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
*[http://www.farsinet.com/christmas/nativity_church.html Church of Nativity - Birth Place of Jesus Christ] Bethlehem.
*[http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm Jesus Christ]Catholic Encyclopedia.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Old Testament

2007-05-02T11:24:20Z

{{Christianity}}

The '''Old Testament''' is, in essence, the collection of different books comprising the Jewish religious scriptures. It documents the creation of the world by God, and the tribulations and errors of human beings, in particular His chosen people the Israelites. Christians, however, see it as a statement of the prehistory of [[Jesus]] [[Messiah|Christ]].

[[Category:Judaism]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Aluminium

2007-05-01T12:20:24Z

M: /* Naming */

{{Element | name=Aluminium | symbol=Al | anumber=13 | amass=27.0 amu | noe=13 | class=Standard Metal | cstructure=Cubic | color=Silver | date=1825 | discname=[[Hans Christian Oersted]] | origname=From the Latin ''alumen''. | uses=Aluminium is a very strong metal yet it is lightweight. It has many uses such as in airplanes, automobiles, and soda cans. | obtained=Bauxite }}

==Naming==
Aluminium is the international standard IUPAC name for this element but Aluminum was adopted by the [[American Chemical Society]] in 1925<ref>[http://www.alunet.net/shownews.asp?ID=490&type=3 Alunet] accessed 25 March 2007</ref> and this remains the standard in the USA.

The British chemist [[Humphrey Davy]] actually proposed the name aluminum before discovery of the element but agreed for it to be changed to aluminium to match the 'ium' endings of many metals<ref>[http://chemistry.about.com/library/blal.htm About.com] accessed 25 March 2007</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Elements]]

Natural science

2007-04-30T15:33:46Z

M: /* Types of science */

'''Science''' is the branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts in order to formulate general laws about the natural world, and the methods by which this study is carried out, such as the ''[[scientific method]]''.

Scientific study relies on specific, fairly well-defined classifications, collectively known as the aforementioned scientific method. In one form or another, it is the means by which all scientific research is conducted.

== Beginnings ==

Although some early [[civilization|civilisations]], particularly [[Ancient Greece|Greece]], developed some scholarship, it was not until the 1500s in [[Europe]] that science proper developed. This was due to the prevailing [[Christian]] worldview, that taught that the creation was not itself Divine, but was the product of a consistent Creator who didn't change His creation, such as the laws of physics, on a whim.

Loren Eiseley:
{{QuoteBox|The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.<ref>L. Eiseley: ''Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It'' (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961), quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Evolution'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 Chapter 1].</ref>}}
Rodney Stark:
{{QuoteBox|...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.<ref>Stark, 2003, [http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7501.html introduction].</ref>}}
Indeed, many of the early scientists, such as [[Galileo]], [[Johannes Kepler]], and Sir [[Isaac Newton]] were people who believed in the literal truth of Genesis and who based their science on their belief in a Creator.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/ Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

== Types of science ==

Science can be subdivided into two categories, ''operational science'' and ''origins science''.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, and Matthews, Michael, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3256 Chapter 1]</ref>

'''Operational science''' deals mostly with things in the present, which scientists are able to observe, measure, and test. If, for example, someone claims that water boils at 110 degrees Celsius at sea level, you can test for yourself to see if that is really true (and discover that it's not).

'''Origins science''' deals with things in the past. Scientists do not have the past to observe, measure, and test, so the conclusions of historical science must be somewhat more tentative than empirical science. If, for example, someone claims that birds evolved from dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, it is difficult to formulate an experiment to effectively support or deny this claim. Because of this, origins science tends to function through observation of historical records, as well as extrapolating current data (which ''can'' easily be experimentally validated) into the past. In addition, it is common for theories to be tested on their adherence to the available evidence; for example, the discovery of ''Tiktaalik'' in the predicted strata for a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html</ref>

In some cases, such as astronomy, the distinction between the two becomes somewhat muddled; strictly speaking, current observations of most astronomical phenomena are dealing with the far-distant past, but experiments and observations are easily performed - it is common for a theoretical prediction to be compared with observed data.

== Bibliography ==

Stark, Rodney, ''For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery'', Princeton University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0691114361.

== Notes ==

<references />

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-25T18:42:45Z

M: /* Just Curious - how many were killed? */

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood? {{unsigned|Trajsmith}}

:Please, learn to use a spell-check function.--[[User:M|M]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The population prior to the flood was not recorded. We have all rejected God (although some have repented of that and accepted Him), so we ''all'' deserve the death sentence. Even Noah and his family. But God chose to not give Noah and his family what they deserved (choosing them because Noah was, humanly speaking, "righteous"), and didn't impose the deserved death penalty on Noah and his family. He even had Noah preach to the people, in order to save them from their destruction, but to no avail. So instead of (implicitly) criticising God for giving the people what they deserved, we should be thanking Him for saving the ones willing to be saved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::WAIT a minute - the penalty for rejecting God, something that we apparently do by virtue of being born, is death? That seems a little screwed up. Most of the world doesn't even ''have'' the death penalty anymore.--[[User:M|M]] 23:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God gave us life, so if we reject Him, we are rejecting the life that he gave us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::That just doesn't parse...parents give their children life, but no civilised society gives parents the right of life or death over their offspring. Parents are responsible ''to'' and ''for'' their children. (Unless you really believe that it would be a good idea to let parents kill disobedient kids?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Parents are the instruments by which God gives the children life. They have the responsibility of raising those children for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-04-25T13:40:40Z

M: /* Eliminate this Hate */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Eliminate this Hate ==

The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this. Present both sides of the issue fairly. I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted. Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted. It claims to be an informative, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

:Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech. God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda. The story of Sodom is particularly informative. It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city. If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision"--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible. God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil. There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people. God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word. I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word. It simply is not true. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Exactly ''where'' does God say that he hates homosexuals? He refers to it as 'abomination' in Leviticus...but then again, the Bible also uses the same term to refer to the eating of shellfish.--[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2: Leveticus 19:17-18. Whether God hates people or not, He has commanded us to not. You mentioned "over 30 admonishments against homosexuality". Passages, please. [[User:Ilikepie|Ilikepie]] 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, can I just point out, (as a happily married, middle aged heterosexual), there is nothing in the Bible which proscribes female homosexuality. Aren't lesbians homosexuals too? KT

:Some would reply with Romans 1, but not me. (BTW, you can sign with the sig button next to the SLASHED W above or simply four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You are a piece of work. I am sorry you are so angry about the world you live in. But you certainly make one thing easy: if there is an afterlife and you are the type of person who is going to be occupying heaven, I'd much rather burn in eternal hell with my incredibly wonderful gay friends.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What would you know Jack? With one up the transom and another one in the gob, it's hard to hear you. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:14, 21 March 2007 (PST).

::::You know, that's funny...I'm bi, and I've never been involved in intercourse with more than one person. Fancy that. --[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Sin

2007-04-25T13:34:36Z

M: /* Jewish */ Added a bit more meat to the article.

[[Sin]] (from [[Old English]] ''synn'', from either [[Old Norse]] ''synd'' or [[German]] ''Sünde'', from ''sun(d)jo'' it is true, from [[Sanskrit]](?) ''es-'' it is) is any failure to conform to the letter of a given code of [[morality]], or the state of being of one so failing to conform, or the state of the world that results from such failure.

== Meaning of sin ==
The root meaning of the [[English]] word ''sin'' is actually, "He is guilty as charged." This in turn implies that the person committing the offense knew, or ought to have known, that his act would ''be'' an offense before he committed it. This word actually captures the meaning that many religious traditions ascribe to sin.

The [[Greek]] word used in the original [[New Testament]] and translated "sin" in English is '''ἁμαρτία''' (''hamartia'') (whence ''[[hamartoma]]'' a malformation of [[cell]]s that are within their usual place in the body). This word captures the ''[[Christian]]'' meaning of sin much better. ''Hamartia'' means ''missing a target.'' Thus sin does not require bad intentions, but might result from a misunderstanding. This is not to say that the consequences are any less dire, however. It does mean that sin need not be intentional; it can be a knowing (but not intentional), reckless, or negligent act.

=== Required: a moral context ===
Sin, which is a moral failure, cannot exist in the absence of a code of [[morality]]. [[Objectivism]] defines morality as "a code of values accepted by choice."

This is not to say that sin requires a context of ''divinity.'' Objectivism, for example, refuses to admit [[God]], while still prescribing a standard of value and a code of morality that follows from it. (Whether such a code can properly stand, by the rules of Objectivism itself, is another matter.) The context in which sin ceases to have meaning is not [[atheism]] ''per se'' but rather [[amoralism]]--the doctrine that says that no person may properly define what is moral for another, because no two people will ever value the same thing to the same degree, or value the same collection of things by the same rank structure.

Whether any man ''ever'' lives without some form of moral code--even if that code is, "I denounce as sin any disagreement with myself or any attempt to stand in my way"--is [[Can any man live without some code of morality?|debatable]]. Nevertheless, without ''some'' form of moral context, sin has no meaning.

== Differing views of sin ==
==== Jewish ====
In [[Judaism]], and certainly in ancient practice, the preferred method of atonement for sin was [[blood sacrifice]]. The Book of [[Leviticus]] prescribed multiple animal sacrifices for atonement for various types of sin. But by far the most important atonement--on the [[Day of Atonement]] (''Yowm Kippur'')--was made by the high priest of the [[Hebrew]] people (originally [[Aaron]], brother of [[Moses]]). This involved making a blood sacrifice, entering the [[Holy of Holies]] (in [[Latin]], ''sanctum sanctorum''), and sprinkling some of the blood from the sacrifice on the [[Ark of the Covenant]].

Animal sacrifice has not been part of Jewish practice since the destruction of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]] by the future [[Rome|Roman]] [[Emperor]] [[Titus]] in [[70 AD]]. But the [[Old Testament]] did not imply that animal sacrifice was the sole ''necessary'' measure for reconciliation. Simple repentance and prayer sufficed numerous times in [[Bible]] history.

Today, though animal sacrifices are no longer observed, Jews do observe ''Yom Kippur'' and other festivals related to repentance and reconciliation. But a movement now exists to attempt to regain exclusive control of the [[Temple Mount]] area in [[Jerusalem]], rebuild the Temple, and resume the burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings prescribed in the [[Torah]].

In traditional Jewish thought, sin may be balanced by the good deeds one performs throughout life; the image of scales weighing one's life are prominent in folklore, similar to other ancient Middle Eastern religions such as ancient Egypt.

=== Christian views ===
==== Roman Catholic ====
[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] doctrine distinguishes [[original sin]], or the sin of [[Adam]], from ''personal'' sins, which require individual reconciliation with [[God]]. A personal sin may be ''mortal'' (a particularly grave matter that the perpetrator commits by deliberate intent) or ''venial'' (a less grave matter that could result from a misunderstanding). The RCC distinction is: Mortal sins cut a person off from the grace of God; venial sins do not, but still injure one's relationship to God.

The one mortal sin that, to a Catholic, would be unforgivable (because its successful commission leaves no opportunity for reconciliation later), is [[suicide]]. Beyond that, a person may receive reconciliation for a mortal sin by making [[Confession (Catholic)|confession]] to a [[Priest (Catholic)|priest]] and receiving the ceremony of [[Absolution from sin|absolution]]. One can reconcile from a venial sin by the sacrament of reconciliation, or by receiving communion, or [[Holy Eucharist]].

Roman Catholic doctrine historically included two other controversial holdings. One is [[purgatory]], a place where the soul must be held to "purge" him of all traces of sin before he can gain entry to [[heaven]]. Redemption from purgatory allegedly required the payment of a monetary fee by the deceased's relatives to the Church. The other is the [[indulgence]], a fee paid to the church by the perpetrator in advance. Indulgences have not been sold for centuries, and recently [[Pope]] [[Benedict XVI]] issued an [[encyclical]] casting doubt on the entire concept of purgatory.

===== Virgin Mary =====
Roman Catholic doctrine holds that not only was [[Jesus]] sinless, but so, also, was His Mother, [[Virgin Mary|Mary]]. The belief that the Virgin Mary was sinless at conception is called the Immaculate Conception.

The [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] teaches that the Virgin Mary was born with Original Sin but that she was cleansed of this sin at the time of the Annunciation. The Church also teaches that by free will she did not commit any actual sin.

This doctrine, called ''Marianism'', is not ''universally'' held by all Catholics, however.

==== Anglican Communion ====
The [[Anglican Communion]], essentially the breakaway church of the [[United Kingdom]], retains the Roman Catholic tradition of confession and absolution of sin. But instead of an individual process, confession in Anglican churches is a group activity, and absolution is pronounced by a [[Minister (Protestant)|minister]] to the entire church-going group. Purgatory and indulgences have no place in Anglican doctrine.

==== Eastern and Oriental Orthodox ====

In the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.

The Orthodox churches, including Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, differ little from [[Judaism]] in their holding of what sin is and how to reconcile it--except that animal sacrifices have never been part of Orthodox tradition.

==== The Reformation ====
In [[1517]], [[Martin Luther]] led the most serious break from Roman Catholic doctrine and tradition, the [[Protestant Reformation]]. This occurred at about the time that King [[Henry VIII]], then of the [[Kingdom of England]], formed the Church of England, the forerunner of the Anglican Communion.

Luther is most famous for his "95 precepts nailed to the church-house door." The most important of these is the principle that he stated in Latin as ''Sola Scriptura''--literally, "Scripture only." Luther rejected out-of-hand most of the various categories of sin, and the elaborate rituals that attended its so-called reconciliation.

To Luther, and to his intellectual heirs in the [[Lutheran Church]] and the [[Dutch Reformed Church]], the Bible tells all one needs to know about sin. Sin, according to Luther, is any failure to observe God's commandments or other Godly precepts that one may determine from the actual teachings of [[Jesus]] and of His [[Apostle]]s (especially [[Paul]], the most prolific writer among them). ''Reconciliation'' from sin was a ''private'' matter between God and any of His followers. A priest or minister ''was not'' required, because that would imply that a human being, of whatever office, could stand in the place of God--a thing Luther regarded as an insult to God, which is the definition of [[blasphemy]].

Nor was any animal sacrifice required, because [[Jesus]] Himself made the One Total and Complete Sacrifice of His own life for the sin condition of the world (see below) and for the sins of individual people, past, present ''and future''. Salvation was strictly by faith and strictly by grace. Luther drew directly on the letters of [[Paul]] that addressed this very subject.

==== The Baptist Tradition ====
The [[Baptists]] would generally agree with Luther. Like him, Baptists hold that sin is an act or omission that displeases God, and the state of being that the perpetrator falls into, and remains in until he has confessed this sin.

Baptist churches do not tend to engage in corporate, collective confessions. Rather, Baptist practice depends heavily on {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=18|verses=15-20|version=KJV}}, which prescribes this procedure for the handling of sin that gives offense to a fellow believer:

# The aggrieved person, or the minister if the aggrieved person has asked him to, tries to encourage the perpetrator to repent. ''Repentance'' (Greek ''metanoia'') means a change of mind, or a change of heart.
# Failing that, whoever tried to talk to the perpetrator the first time, tries a second time and brings a witness.
# If this still does not bring repentance, and a cessation of the behavior, then and only then does the matter come before the entire church. The minister lays out the case, and puts the matter to a vote as to whether the offender ought to be allowed to remain in fellowship.

Not all Baptist churches practice this discipline, however. In such environments, sin is a matter between the offender and God (and the person or persons to whom the offender might have given offense). Some observers suggest that churches suffer when they fail to practice discipline as they should.

==== Fundamentalists ====
: ''Main Article: [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]''

The above article is a comprehensive theory of sin, and its effects on the offender, on mankind as a whole, and on the entire world.

=== Islam ===
In [[Islam]], sin is very simple: anything that runs counter to the will of [[Allah]] (Arabic for [[God]]). In Islam, sin is simply an act, never a state of being.

Islam recognizes five gradations of sin, in order of severity:

# Mistakes.
# Immorality.
# Transgressions.
# Wickedness and depravity.
# Ascribing a partner to God. Thus this one special instance of [[blasphemy]] is held worse than any other sin a man can commit.

In Islam, permanent reconciliation cannot come in life. Instead, at death, a person has his "good deeds" measured against his "bad deeds" (sins). If the good outweighs the bad, then the person must walk a tightrope over a lake of fire in order to cross into heaven. Islam, however, offers one important exception: any person who dies ''in the course of an act that advances the Muslim faith'' gains automatic entry into heaven, regardless of any prior sins he has committed. The usual, and some Muslims (particularly the [[Wahhabism|Wahabbi]] sect) say the only, context for such a death is ''[[jihad]]'', literally ''holy [[war]]''. Furthermore, ''jihad'' is a ''physical'' war against non-adherents to Islam.

Other Muslims will say that ''jihad'' is not physical at all, but refers instead to a personal struggle that every Muslim must engage in continually against sin and the temptations thereto.

Still others state that two forms of Jihad are known:
# The greater Jihad, which is the internal struggle within a person against sin.
# The lesser Jihad, physical war against the infidel.

Those who make that distinction state that what they call the "lesser jihad" is practiced only by fanatical holders to Islam. A ''fanatic'' is one who holds to a set of beliefs uncritically--that is, without being willing to judge them. Since the [[World Trade Center incident]], a number of Muslims ''have'' begun a critical analysis of Muslim doctrine (both verbal and written) and the place of Islam in the civilized world. Whether those voices can find sufficent logical support in the written texts that define Islam is debatable.

=== Objectivism ===
Objectivism does not admit to any kind of divinity, but it still has its own code of morality. Though a student of Objectivism does not normally use the word ''sin'', one may best infer what Objectivism considers sinful by examining what it teaches man to value. A basic, but by no means exhaustive, list would include:

# Failure to be relentlessly rational in everything one does.
# Coveting the fruits of another's labor without being willing to pay for those fruits.
# Failure to give value for value received.
# Violation of another person's right to pursue his life in a non-offensive manner.
# Initiating the use of force against another person or group of persons.
# Accepting as real anything one cannot see.
# Refusing to accept reality.
# Attempting to create one's own reality.

Reconciliation for sin, beyond restitution to another to whom one has brought material loss by his sin, is not generally required. In the Objectivist model, one pays the consequences of his particular sins in the form of loss of trade, loss of respect, ''et cetera.'' Because Objectivism admits no heaven, it admits no [[hell]], either, and therefore all of the consequences of sin ''must'' occur in this life.

=== Cults and cult figures ===
A [[cult]], properly speaking, is a belief system centered on one person, or the group of persons led by that person. In the context of a cult, sin is any refusal to uphold the decisions or obey the orders of the leader, and anything else that gives offense to the leader. Reconciliation is generally at the leader's own discretion.

=== Totalitarianism ===
[[Totalitarianism]] is a [[philosophy]] of [[government]] that holds that the government ''must'' have absolute authority over ''all'' aspects of life. [[Communist]]s are totalitarians, just as the [[Nazi]]s were.

Totalitarian authorities and their apologists have their concept of sin as well: it is anything that works against the government, or tries to thwart its goals. This is true even in a regime that is explicitly [[Atheism|atheistic]] in worldview. Reconciliation generally requires recantation.

=== Socialism ===
[[Socialism]], whether as a system of government or as a school of philosophy, has a definite standard of value: "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." Sin under socialism is anything that undermines this. Theoretically, sin also includes ''conspicuous consumption'' at a level beyond that attainable by "the average person."

=== Environmentalism ===
[[Environmentalism]] also has a standard of value: ''the good of the planet as a wild system.'' Anything that harms the earth or makes it less wild is sinful in this system. The controversy surrounding [[global warming]] is, at root, a controversy about environmentalism as a source of moral values, and the allegation that humans in general, and/or some humans in particular, have transgressed against the environmentalist moral standard.

== Summary ==
Some religious and philosophical traditions consider sin to be a deliberate act; others say that it can be merely a mistake. Some say that reconciliation for sin requires a certain work; others that reconciliation is by the grace of [[God]] (or, for some, a cult leader), and still others (most notably the Objectivists) say that reconciliation is not required, except perhaps to any particular affronted person.

As mentioned, [[atheism|atheists]] do not necessarily lack a concept of sin (though they might not call it by that name). But ''amoral'' individuals, if such exist, cannot understand sin, because sin presupposes a moral code that someone might breach.

== References ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin Sin] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://creationwiki.org/Sin Sin] by [[CreationWiki]]

[http://www.oca.org Orthodox Church in America]

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible study]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-25T13:31:33Z

M: /* Just Curious - how many were killed? */

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-25T03:03:13Z

M: /* Just Curious - how many were killed? */

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-24T21:32:20Z

M: /* Just Curious - how many were killed? */

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood?

:Please, learn to use a spell-check function.--[[User:M|M]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-04-24T21:28:13Z

M: Revamp the article?

== Shooting Darwin Down ==

someone who can write better than me should put this theory in the darwin, evolution, intelligent design and irreducible complexity pages 

[http://www.videosift.com/video/Peanut-Butter-The-Atheists-Nightmare|The Athiest's Nightmare]

--[[User:Thurston|Thurston]] 21:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You ''can't'' be serious. I think that I may have lost an IQ point or two after watching that drivel. Is this from the same people who tried to put forth the ''domesticated'' banana as a disproof of evolution? --[[User:M|M]] 20:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
----

This article is heavily weighted toward a discussion of Darwin's struggle with religious faith with comparatively little discussion of those things for which he is principally of interest.

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?

----
===Religious Views===

I have completely revamped the '''Religious Beliefs''' section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Read a credible biography for once. He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Oops, I stand corrected. He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death. Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his ''Autobiography'' is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published ''Origin of Species'' (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== I created an article at another website ==

I created an article at another website:

[[Darwin's illness]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty. Should we add that to the article? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* Your question solicits opinion, not fact. Can it be conclusively demonstrated that his illness was Divine punishment? If not, I would say leave it out. Unless it's proven, it doesn't matter how many people think this or that about it. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== A note on Darwin ==

He never stated that his theory of species evolution should be applied to humans. If you read the last sentence of "The Origin of Species" he says something to the effect of "this could apply to humans, but I don't see how and frankly I'm not convinced" so stop blaming him.

However, in the later book "the Descent of Man" he DID apply it to humans.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== The footnotes are messed up. I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. ==

The footnotes are messed up. I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

==More advanced then women?==

I can't find that phrase in Decent of Man is their a citation for this? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Revamp the article? ==

It seems a little odd to me that the section on Darwin's religious beliefs dwarfs the rest of it...--[[User:M|M]] 17:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Judaism

2007-04-24T21:26:06Z

M: /* "Nation' */

What a so long digression about Mel Gibson. It's said that his father went to concentration camp during WWII. What do we care ? Jews have been exterminated by the Nazi during this war. It's absolutely out of context and interest. The pig talk is as well without any interest, empty and absolutely false.

I think what you read was vandalism. It's no longer there. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should be merged with [[Jews]] and [[Jew]].--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism ==

It seems to me that this article should contain information about Judaism. The long passage about Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedron is still here, and it is many times longer than the brief stub which actually is about Judaism. Also, the line about circumcision is out of context here -- in a longer, more detailed article, it could be worked in along with related issues.

Since [[Abraham]] is claimed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a Patriarch, this issue probably should be covered in a separate article aboout him, rather than being the second thing mentioned in an article about Judaism.

I hope we can make this entry as informative and accurate as possible.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 20:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Christ was a jew. It's an important part of both our histories. Toryboy

:: Yes Boethius, I must agree with you – it might well profit us that an article headed "Judaism" "should contain information on Judaism" as you propose. But Toryboy, I can't see how you missed (and I quote) "Though Jesus is said to have been Jewish..." And this is my query, why the qualification "said to be". I mean is the Pope "reputed by some to have a connection with the Catholic Church"? What is going on here? His Mother was Jewish, even if the question of the exact nationality of his Dad is perhaps best left to the Jesuits. Regardless, Jewishness is conferred via the maternal line, so he is 100 per cent kosher in that regard, Does "Jesus was a Jew" sound perhaps a little infra-dig, just a trifle abrupt, mayhap?
mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au March 31, 2007

:::Interestingly enough, the father’s ethnicity does matter to many Jews. For the purposes of immigration to Israel you are quite right—maternal linage is enough. However, inter-religious marriage is and was deeply frowned upon. Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is one of the relevant text—because the Rabbis believe in “building a wall around the Torah” it is interpreted to forbid marriage to any non-Jew and the child of any such marriage is understood to be illegitimate and therefore not fit to enter into the congregation (and therefore not Jewish). So, one may be the child of a Jewish mother and still not a Jew if the father is not a Jew as well.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Not really...Jesus is an important part of Christian theology, but not Judaism. Claiming to be God's son isn't that special in a religion that applies that term to all of humanity. --[[User:M|M]]

But Jesus was a Jew and was a devout Jew practicing all the laws and obeying the commandments. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but there have been millions of devout Jews; that doesn't make them all historical figures. Jesus wasn't a scholar or a sage like Maimonides; he's of historical importance only to Christianity and Islam, not Judaism.--[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I was actually rather offended that "circumcision" was referred to as "mutilation" on this page. The majority of white Americans are circumcised, as are most Jews, and our President, George W. Bush, recently allotted funding to promote circumcision in Africa, in recognition of the fact that circumcised penises are healthier, and (some would argue) more aesthetically pleasing. Please treat circumcision with respect: it is a proper and beneficial surgery. [[User:Isiah24]]

I am interested to hear that your President thinks highly enough of "aesthetically pleasing" black African penises to invest funds to ensure whole generations to come are properly endowed. Who would have thought that a leader of the Republicans would have supported a policy that would certainly have been rejected by the Gay Liberation Front as being a little too radical? mylesP email: myles325@yahoo.com.au

:While I agree with the benefits of circumcision, it is still debated whether it is healthier and more beneficial. Nevertheless, I agree that a better term can be used to describe circumcision. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:How about topping the asparagus, trimming the cigar, uncowling the capuchin monk?... mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au

:Circumcision, if beneficial, is beneficial in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS among promiscuous people who refuse to use condoms. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage (assuming your husband/wife does the same) is a much safer way to prevent HIV/AIDS. Baring that, condoms are much more effective than circumcision. So Americans, especially those raised properly, have no “health reason” to be circumcised.
:So, health concerns aside, what would you call having a doctor cut off part of your son’s penis—sure, it’s a religious obligation of the Jews, but the New Testament is quite clear on the subject of circumcision (see Acts 15) circumcision is unnecessary. An unnecessary surgery that removes a very sensitive piece of flesh and that has the potential to castrate a child entirely sounds like mutilation to me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unexpected deletions ==

I wish that Ezra Wax and Mountain Dew would explain why they deleted most of the article about Judaism, of which I was the major author. The current version is now far too sort and now lacks important information which was there in previous versions. I realize some of the additions to this article were in need of work, but this doesn't explain deleting the entire article and replacing it with a dumbed-down version.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, thanks M (whoever you are), the current version is a great step forward, I think. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome! I just hate seeing inaccurate info. --[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Preposterous examples of stupidity==

That the Jews are descendants of Satan, and that the Israelites are the ancestors of the Celts and Germans. Has this been deliberately left in the article, or is it an oversight? The thing I can never really understand is anti-Semitic Christians - Jesus was a Jew and Jews wrote the entire New Testament (let alone the old). [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== some more added ==

I added some more to the page, hopefully more of a introduction. I'll keep working on it to get a good blurb of judaism.

== Jews for Jesus? ==

I really fail to see why there is a link to "Jews for Jesus" in this entry; someone who claims to be a Jew for Jesus simply is not Jewish.
There is a term for anyone who views Jesus as the messiah and believes in the Holy Trinity - that term is Christian.--[[User:M|M]] 04:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

To be fair, so-called Messianic Jews really do consider themselves Jewish, and many started off Jewish, and retain the cultural trapping of Judaism. In other words, they are much like the first Christians, simply a sect of Jews. While not recognized by most mainstream Jews as being "jewish", they self-identify as jewish. For my part, I think they should call themselves something different, like "judeo-christians" or something, but that's neither here nor there.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 16:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Messianic Jews are not Jews for the purpose of any official Jewish function. I can cite a ton of stuff on this; just let me ask my girlfriend, but in the meantime I'm deleting the language or rephrasing it. Oh, also, JFJ were formed by an evangelical Christian minister for the express purpose of converting Jews while convincing them they weren't being converted. True story.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

=="Nation'==
*''Jews became an independent nation when Moses (Moshe) led them out of Egypt''
Why is the word "independent" used here? And what are we to make of the Genesis 12:2, God speaking to Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation"? Didn't Israel become a nation with the birth of Isaac, more specifically a "great nation" with the birth of Jacob (Israel)'s 12 sons, the Patriarchs? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would think probably because a nation enslaved cannot be referred to as a free nation? In the Seder service, it's said that the Hebrews became "a nation, great, mighty and numerous" amidst the Egyptians.--[[User:M|M]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestions==
The article should be divided into sections. It'd be good to add photos. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-23T22:11:02Z

M: /* Pando */

Dog

2007-04-23T13:53:28Z

M: Posted uncited for now...I'll look for the citation when I have a free moment.

[[Image:akitadog.jpg|thumb|right|According to genetic studies the Akita is one of the oldest breeds of dog.]]

'''Dogs''', are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]] (given the scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'' ), divided into a multitude of different breeds all capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example). They are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for upwards of ten thousand years; in Biblical times, they had already been coexisting with humans long enough for it to be regarded as the natural order of things. Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other any other creature on the planet.

Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the United States seeks medical help for a dog bite. There are approximately 800,000 bites per year in the United States that require medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref> Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

It is likely, based on genetic evidence, that the oldest breeds of dog originate in [[Asia]], and that thus the domestic dog originated there; similar research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers of the [[America]]s brought dogs of some sort with them.

Dogs are used for many purposes:

*Guarding property and livestock.
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]].
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain rescue.
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]].
*Providing assistance to blind and deaf people.
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s.
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges and dogcarts.
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles and walk the tightrope.
* For fighting, now illegal in most places.
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today.

Today most dogs are kept for companionship only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2007-04-23T13:45:53Z

M: /* This article is a travesty */

{{protect|Conservative}}

=Draft=

{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/flood}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/naturalism}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/supporters}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/scientists}}

=Discussion=

== Conservative's edits ==

The total of those edits are given by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=17299&oldid=17197 this dif] Objections to these edits include: 1) the removal of material discussing radiometric dating and starlight (it isn't clear to me why that material was removed given that the YEC responses are given). Second, he has thrown in a variety of quotes. Now, whether one calls these quotes quote-mines or not(they all are, but Conservative seems to dislike this term) a number of things are clear even ignoring issues of context, at least one of these quotes is out of date (1983 !) and none of them are at all relevant. This is an article about ''Young Earth Creationism.'' None of the quotes have anything to do with that since a) they aren't talking about YECism but possible issues with certain more standard scientific viewpoints and b) they don't alter the basic issues at hand such as the age of the earth(for example, whether or not we understand how "galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe" has nothing to do with the age of the earth or whether evolution took place or whether there was a global flood or anything else relevant to YECism. Furthermore, the citation given for these quotes is another Wiki, and wikis are inherently unreliable and not useful souring. 3) The added material is poorly organized; even if it were to be included, it makes no sense as an organizational matter to have in the introduction a long list of example quotes (and certainly not before basic issues like the global flood. Furthermore, since the end of the paragraph discusses what arguments they use, it would make far more sense to put it there. I must also register concern that Conservative has unilaterally protected this article after making his own changes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::Thank your for your feedback both in this talk page and on my discussion page. I used some of your feedback to edit the material. Secondly, CreationWiki sources the '''two quotes''' I used from CreationWiki. Thirdly, I believe that old earth creationist scientist such as Dr. Ross posit that the galaxies, planets, suns, etc were formed naturally as opposed to young earth creationists who believe they were created supernaturally at least for the most part. Third, radiometric dating discussion and starlight discussion can be found in one of the footnotes I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: To you second point A wiki sourcing anything is not reliable. It doesn't matter whether it is used for one quote, 10 quotes a thousand quotes or whatever. Wikis are not reliable and should not be used for sourcing. To your third point that the quote about planetary formation is relevant because Ross believes in natural planetary formation- we aren't talking about Hugh Ross here, we are talking about YECism. If we have an article about OECism then it might be relevant there. To your fourth point, yes they are mentioned in the reference but they are both important enough and major enough to mention in the article- in its current form it does not discuss at all the mainstream evidence and the YEC responses to that evidence; it is hard for me to see how that isn't important, especially in regard to radiometric dating. Nothing you have done here in any way deals with the issue that this bad organization having a large set of quotes in the middle before you get to basic issues like who supports YECism. Nor did you address the concern about the decision to protect the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:54, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Further problems with recent edits ==

At this point, you need to read almost a full page before one even finds out who actually supports YECism. At minimum, some of the evidence should be put in a later section so the introduction can be brief and actually give the relevant introductory details. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing. ==

The section detailing the popular acceptance had a note that the acceptance rate among scientists was around 5% (and the 5% number put inside a footnote). That has been replaced with the standard DI claim that the number of scientists skeptical of certain aspects of evolution is on the rise. First, there isn't any point to it in the footnote since it isn't supporting anything in the article. If it going to be here, it should be in the article. Second, the DI claim at best is about evolution and has nothing to do with YECism. C) removal of the number, especially replacing it with the DI's (essentially unreliable, usubsuntiated claim) gives a misleading pciture. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Ok, we're getting slightly better now. Now, the DI part is still problematic. The DI 700 or so and all that has nothing to do with age of the earth or YECism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I wrote: "However, the ranks of scientists '''openly rejecting evolutionary ideas''' ([[macroevolution|macroevolutionary ideas]] posit the earth is millions of years old) is currently on the rise. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732]
The fact is that the effort in question is a very publicized effort and more scientists are signing on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Um, that this is a very publicized effort yes, the rest holds no water. First, claiming that the numbers are on the rise because more people have signed the same petition is illogical- to show a rise, one would need to show that the number of people at any given time were more than the number prior. One would presumably do that with some sort of sampling, not a compiled list. Second, this still has nothing to do with YECism. One could completely agree with that statement and still not be a YEC (heck, one could still be a mainstream scientist who completely accepts evolution and still sign that statement if one thinks that neutral drift, sexual selection and other ways of modifying the gene pool are sufficiently important). Furthermore, one could completely disagree with basic evolutionary biology claims and still not be a YEC (take Hugh Ross for example). On the whole, putting the DI's claim here is both misleading and irrelevant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:07, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== 55% - macroevolution ==

The gallup poll did not say that 55% of scientists accepted "macroevolution" indeed macroevolution was not mentioned anywhere in the poll. The poll showed that 55% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" and 39% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." This gives a total of 96% accepting descent from a common ancestor (which is what I think the editor meant by "macroevolution" in this context). 22:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Thanks for your input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

Schaller found that lionesses do 90% of the hunting and lions (males) only 10%. Furthermore the female leads the cubs to the freshly killed animal. (Rudnai 1973) This seems inconsistent with the Bible:

The lion tore enough for his whelps. (Nahum 2:12)

I didn't see how this source discredited science's claims about lions. Plus, you don't always have to be right the first time, you know. Science changes with new information. Until then, the best is done with what evidence is present. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Unproofed theories are not wrong theories ==

Hi,
I am new in Conservapedia. I think the most trouble thing here is that unproofed theories are equalized to wrong theories. But this ist wrong! Only falsifized theories are wrong.

Young Earth Creationism is a great Idea. It solves all the roblems about "time" before 6000 B.C.
But it is very very complex. It needs a creator. And this creator has a high complexity.
Most scientists look for the simplest solution for a problem, not any.

Einstein for example searched for the simplest way to solve relative speed and found a way in last century. It is a theorie, not the truth. It has not been falsifized jet. So we can trust.
So did Darwin. He tried to find a simple solution for flora and fauna. And he found a very simple theorie, that has not been falsifized jet.

Yound Earth Creationists try to falsifize the theory. But to falifize you need proofs. Not the lack of proofs. Not to find something is not a proof that is not there.
Sorry, we have to work harder to make Young Earth Creationism to a theory to be proud of. It has to be the simplest imaginalble!

It took Einstein and his colleagues years to figure out relativity, believe me when I say both the math and the concepts behind it are extremely complicated.
Whereas creationism can be explained in, well, how fast can you say "God did it"? (It took me less than 2 seconds)

Here are two links for proof of relativity:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment and later experiments with more accurate clocks]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If you think that creationism can be adequately described as "God did it", you have no idea of creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, "God magically did it 6000 years ago, in 6 days". (8 seconds)

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If that is intended to prove that you ''do'' have a reasonable idea of creationism, you have failed miserably. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

What else is their, except for misquotations and claims that the Devil put fossils in the ground to mislead us?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Neither of those things. Spend a month reading articles [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here] and you should have a reasonable idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Proof ==

First off im an Admited Liberal and non Christian, just getting this out of the way. I have read your facts on Evolution and your facts on Creationism. I just have one question throghtout Evolution your editors and writters CONSTANTLY show the lack of evidence supporting Evolution, while when talking about Creationism you blame all lack on the fact that few scientists support the claim. Here is my quetion where is your proof. If Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct then there should be evidence besides the Holy Bibles or books or scripture, take all Religion out of the argument and either prove that Creationism has as much evidence as the THEORY of EVOLUTION (yep theory not hard fact) and you will have a case but at no time in any writtings that i have seen or lectures i have heard has any evidence, besides GOD says so, been given to support your claim. Evolution though and theory that the earth is older then a hand full of thousdand years has been given evidence through proven scientific research. I would like to point out that the church has been fighting scientific theory for a long time including the earth is round and that the stars in the night sky are far away and not just jewls hanging right above our planet, or even that the planet earth is the center of the universe. and finaly that if God created everything how come the practice of Jewdism only seemed to appear after man became a hunter/gatherer tribe set giving up a portion of there nomadic ways and appeard in a comunity that animal husbandry became comon showing a need for a "shepard to watch his flock"
thats it just show some proff of your theory

== 45% support ==
The article currently states: "Roughly 45% of the United States population identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists, and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years." Neither of the citations support that statement. As far as I can tell, the relevant surveys showed that 45% of Americans believe that God created man about 10k years ago in his present form. Nothing indicated anyone's beliefs about the age of ''the Earth'' nor the ''labels people apply to themselves''. While all YECs ''do'' believe that man was created within 10,000 years, that doesn't imply that all people who believe that man was created within 10,000 years are YECs (believe ''the Earth'' was also created then ''and identify themselves as YECs'').

Since the article is locked, I can't reword it, but something more accurate would be:

: Roughly 45% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago, which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism.

[[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 01:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Bob. That sentence was put in by a evolutionist. LOL [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is a travesty ==

Citing to "bloodletting" as an example of science's major failures is beyond ridiculous, and using it as proof of how fluctual science is, well, that's even worse. Honestly, I don't know why [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] is an admin; the edits here are shockingly bad. Can an unbiased admin have a crack at this article...

PLEASE?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Medical science is part of science. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Alchemy is wrong? Well there goes the hope of hot fusion![[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This article is one of the reasons for Conservapedia. To have articles without [[liberal]] bias. It should stay as it is. I'm sure[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] knows what he is doing.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the two are ever so slightly different... I can't tell from your sarcasm whose side you're on :-).
:::Also, JC, the purpose of Conservapedia is not to be biased towards Christianity: it's to allow Christians to air their views ''on equal footing'' with other views. Am I right? Teach the controversy?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::One of the things that bother me about this site is that the articles don't define what the subject ''is'' so much as getting straight to the refutation about why it's ''wrong''. And yes, AmesG, I do understand the difference betwixt alchemical and nuclear transmutation. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly. Leave the Christian views on an ''equal footing'' as they are.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Equal footing does ''not'' mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--[[User:M|M]] 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You're a bit slow responding to ''that'' comment! What misinformation is in the article? If I agree, I will remove/modify/clarify it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sorry if I'm posting on a dead comment; I was just skimming Conservapedia briefly before I left for class this morning. As for misinformation, there's a few things...the section on transitional fossils is simply disgraceful, for one thing. No mention whatsoever of ancestral whale fossils, the early mammal ancestors (as they split off from reptiles), the elephant or horse ancestral lines, or the australopithecines or other fossil hominids...and the two that it does mention, ''Archaeopteryx'' and ''Tiktaalik'', it dismisses for no good reason. (Referring to Archaeopteryx as a 'perching bird'...and completely disregarding the fact that it possessed ''teeth'' and a reptilian tail, for one thing!)

:::::There also seems to be some copy-pasting going on, as I've seen the following text verbatim in several different articles:
<blockquote>
According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists. This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.
</blockquote>

:::::If a Christian scientist can work on experiments involving evolutionary principles (as the great majority of genetics or biological experiments do), why is it assumed that any scientist, no matter their personal beliefs, will actively try to discriminate against valid research?

:::::(There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not.
:::::Conservapedia ''is'' supposed to be about an accurate and balanced viewpoint, isn't it?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to double-comment, but I just noticed that there's at least one instance of inaccurate quote-mining on this page. Here's the quote by Mark Ridley in the entry:

<blockquote>
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831
</blockquote>

:::::And here's the ''complete'' quote:

<blockquote>
`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.
`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)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
`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)
</blockquote>

:::::He's being misquoted, with the apparent intent of making it seem like a respected zoologist is saying the opposite of what he actually means.--[[User:M|M]] 09:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The current article clearly denigrates evolution below the place it enjoys in the scientific canons, based on inane arguments that don't deserve to be placed here. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry if my failure at understanding sarcasm insulted you, Cracker!!! Not my intent!! I was just confused...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This whole project is a travesty. I've never been accused of being a liberal, but I can't beileve any educated, honest person would support this project. I don't understand how this project's critics can take it so seriously. Im sure you've all read the article on evolution. Like I said before the creators and supporters of this project are embarrassing themselves. - [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 20:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== spent time proofreading ==

I received a short note regarding this article concerning some suggested improvements in grammar among other things. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some areas where the article could be improved. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is ridiculous ==
Do we want credibility? Do we want to be taken seriously in the world? Do we want to get rid of the loony liberals that are ruining our country? Then we need--at a bare minimum--to accept the basic laws of physics. This article is a travesty, and it is one of the reasons why "conservative" has become synonymous with "bat s*** crazy." Can someone with half a brain and a decent understanding of the universe please fix this? Conservative should not mean "idiot," it should simply mean "conservative." Edmund Burke would be disgusted by you YECers. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:50 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is ridiculous as it stands. The article should restrict itself to decribing YEC, not refuting evolution...that is for another place.
Also, you state statistics that most Americans believe this, and that most scientists dont, then go on to say that consensus doesnt make it so. So, I guess if the Americans that were polled agree that YEC is true, that it is, and if most scientists agree that it is false, well, they be godless wizards, see Leviticus 20.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

* I am not a YEC so I am glad this article is locked. Since I have nothing contribute to a Young Earth article, I may proceed to edit Old Earth articles without a fair and balanced rebuttal here. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 18:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Excuse me, it's not locked. But only the beautiful people can edit it: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&curid=6662&diff=96819&oldid=96811] Not cool at all, gentlemen. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unprotected subpages==

I propose a technical solution: use an undocumented feature of templates to create editable subpages. I introduced this technique at Wikipedia, and it's used quite a bit for their administrative pages (see [[transclusion]], which I'll write eventually).

Anyway, just click on the "edit" button on the right side of any section under "Draft" at the top of this page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Evolution - The Resurrection ==

Regarding the last few edits, which copy-pasted entire sections from [[Theory of evolution]]:

Seriously, is this article becoming "Theory of Evolution II"? Conservative's new playground now that he may only do minor changes to Theory of Evolution?

I guess that sorta proves all the critics right - large part of that article weren't about evolution at all. It's just modular creationist talk. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Title does not fit content ==

There has got to be more content about YEC itself, but this article spends most of it's time refuting evolution. We already have an article for that ([[Theory of evolution|Criticisms of the theory of evolution]]). This should be a scholarly explanation of YEC, not a evo-bashfest. I'd love to add YEC-bashing to the [[Theory of evolution]] article, but I am one of the editors who thinks it is necessary to show restraint. Just a thought... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that much of this article is actually lifted almost word for word from the 'evolution' article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I suppose I don't have to point out the logical fallacy in using an evo article to create a YEC article. I don't even know where to start with explaining how wrong that is. Ban me now, Ban me now!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::There we go. All the stuff which appears in the 'evolution' article is now gone. Perhaps some of it is better here than there, but I'll leave that for the YECs to hash out for themselves. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::many of the major reasons why people reject the theory of evolution are the same reasons they accept young earth creationism. I see no problem with overlap. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Perhaps that means that the [[evolution]] article shouldn't defer to one perspective, then?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Ames, I have no idea what you are saying. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
The converse is a concern I have expressed to you. I am just arguing that if the YEC viewpoint is represented so very well here, maybe it shouldn't all be on the evolution page, but instead have a reference FROM the evolution page to this page. To cut down on server size and be better organized.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The panel already ruled on the theory of evolution article AmesG. It is not being gutted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

It was totally worth a try. I'm sure if we came to a consensus, though, they would respect it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but there will never be a consensus (or even a proper discussion that may lead to one) since a few sysops will shout "THE PANEL HAS DECIDED! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT! END OF DISCUSSION! ANDY AGREES!" before things can get going. Add to that the resignation after the Panel's decision, and you got a dead article, basically. *shrugs* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anyone Notice... ==
That this is almost the same article as [[evolution]]?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
: *downgrades the headline level* Yes. *points at upper two sections* And Tsumetai's deletion of the duplicate material juuuust got reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Verb number should agree with the number of the subject in a sentence. I would fix the first sentence, but, well.... And for the sake of parallelism, the evolutionary age of the universe should also be included.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 18:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:I've fixed the first sentence; thanks for pointing that out. The evolutionary age of the Earth ''is'' included, in the first sentence; I don't follow what you are getting at there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::I guess you figured it out, since you added the age of the universe on 21 April.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::No I didn't. I changed one word[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=119444&oldid=116007]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2007-04-23T13:41:31Z

M: /* This article is a travesty */

{{protect|Conservative}}

=Draft=

{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/flood}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/naturalism}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/supporters}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/scientists}}

=Discussion=

== Conservative's edits ==

The total of those edits are given by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=17299&oldid=17197 this dif] Objections to these edits include: 1) the removal of material discussing radiometric dating and starlight (it isn't clear to me why that material was removed given that the YEC responses are given). Second, he has thrown in a variety of quotes. Now, whether one calls these quotes quote-mines or not(they all are, but Conservative seems to dislike this term) a number of things are clear even ignoring issues of context, at least one of these quotes is out of date (1983 !) and none of them are at all relevant. This is an article about ''Young Earth Creationism.'' None of the quotes have anything to do with that since a) they aren't talking about YECism but possible issues with certain more standard scientific viewpoints and b) they don't alter the basic issues at hand such as the age of the earth(for example, whether or not we understand how "galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe" has nothing to do with the age of the earth or whether evolution took place or whether there was a global flood or anything else relevant to YECism. Furthermore, the citation given for these quotes is another Wiki, and wikis are inherently unreliable and not useful souring. 3) The added material is poorly organized; even if it were to be included, it makes no sense as an organizational matter to have in the introduction a long list of example quotes (and certainly not before basic issues like the global flood. Furthermore, since the end of the paragraph discusses what arguments they use, it would make far more sense to put it there. I must also register concern that Conservative has unilaterally protected this article after making his own changes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::Thank your for your feedback both in this talk page and on my discussion page. I used some of your feedback to edit the material. Secondly, CreationWiki sources the '''two quotes''' I used from CreationWiki. Thirdly, I believe that old earth creationist scientist such as Dr. Ross posit that the galaxies, planets, suns, etc were formed naturally as opposed to young earth creationists who believe they were created supernaturally at least for the most part. Third, radiometric dating discussion and starlight discussion can be found in one of the footnotes I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: To you second point A wiki sourcing anything is not reliable. It doesn't matter whether it is used for one quote, 10 quotes a thousand quotes or whatever. Wikis are not reliable and should not be used for sourcing. To your third point that the quote about planetary formation is relevant because Ross believes in natural planetary formation- we aren't talking about Hugh Ross here, we are talking about YECism. If we have an article about OECism then it might be relevant there. To your fourth point, yes they are mentioned in the reference but they are both important enough and major enough to mention in the article- in its current form it does not discuss at all the mainstream evidence and the YEC responses to that evidence; it is hard for me to see how that isn't important, especially in regard to radiometric dating. Nothing you have done here in any way deals with the issue that this bad organization having a large set of quotes in the middle before you get to basic issues like who supports YECism. Nor did you address the concern about the decision to protect the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:54, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Further problems with recent edits ==

At this point, you need to read almost a full page before one even finds out who actually supports YECism. At minimum, some of the evidence should be put in a later section so the introduction can be brief and actually give the relevant introductory details. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing. ==

The section detailing the popular acceptance had a note that the acceptance rate among scientists was around 5% (and the 5% number put inside a footnote). That has been replaced with the standard DI claim that the number of scientists skeptical of certain aspects of evolution is on the rise. First, there isn't any point to it in the footnote since it isn't supporting anything in the article. If it going to be here, it should be in the article. Second, the DI claim at best is about evolution and has nothing to do with YECism. C) removal of the number, especially replacing it with the DI's (essentially unreliable, usubsuntiated claim) gives a misleading pciture. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Ok, we're getting slightly better now. Now, the DI part is still problematic. The DI 700 or so and all that has nothing to do with age of the earth or YECism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I wrote: "However, the ranks of scientists '''openly rejecting evolutionary ideas''' ([[macroevolution|macroevolutionary ideas]] posit the earth is millions of years old) is currently on the rise. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732]
The fact is that the effort in question is a very publicized effort and more scientists are signing on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Um, that this is a very publicized effort yes, the rest holds no water. First, claiming that the numbers are on the rise because more people have signed the same petition is illogical- to show a rise, one would need to show that the number of people at any given time were more than the number prior. One would presumably do that with some sort of sampling, not a compiled list. Second, this still has nothing to do with YECism. One could completely agree with that statement and still not be a YEC (heck, one could still be a mainstream scientist who completely accepts evolution and still sign that statement if one thinks that neutral drift, sexual selection and other ways of modifying the gene pool are sufficiently important). Furthermore, one could completely disagree with basic evolutionary biology claims and still not be a YEC (take Hugh Ross for example). On the whole, putting the DI's claim here is both misleading and irrelevant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:07, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== 55% - macroevolution ==

The gallup poll did not say that 55% of scientists accepted "macroevolution" indeed macroevolution was not mentioned anywhere in the poll. The poll showed that 55% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" and 39% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." This gives a total of 96% accepting descent from a common ancestor (which is what I think the editor meant by "macroevolution" in this context). 22:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Thanks for your input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

Schaller found that lionesses do 90% of the hunting and lions (males) only 10%. Furthermore the female leads the cubs to the freshly killed animal. (Rudnai 1973) This seems inconsistent with the Bible:

The lion tore enough for his whelps. (Nahum 2:12)

I didn't see how this source discredited science's claims about lions. Plus, you don't always have to be right the first time, you know. Science changes with new information. Until then, the best is done with what evidence is present. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Unproofed theories are not wrong theories ==

Hi,
I am new in Conservapedia. I think the most trouble thing here is that unproofed theories are equalized to wrong theories. But this ist wrong! Only falsifized theories are wrong.

Young Earth Creationism is a great Idea. It solves all the roblems about "time" before 6000 B.C.
But it is very very complex. It needs a creator. And this creator has a high complexity.
Most scientists look for the simplest solution for a problem, not any.

Einstein for example searched for the simplest way to solve relative speed and found a way in last century. It is a theorie, not the truth. It has not been falsifized jet. So we can trust.
So did Darwin. He tried to find a simple solution for flora and fauna. And he found a very simple theorie, that has not been falsifized jet.

Yound Earth Creationists try to falsifize the theory. But to falifize you need proofs. Not the lack of proofs. Not to find something is not a proof that is not there.
Sorry, we have to work harder to make Young Earth Creationism to a theory to be proud of. It has to be the simplest imaginalble!

It took Einstein and his colleagues years to figure out relativity, believe me when I say both the math and the concepts behind it are extremely complicated.
Whereas creationism can be explained in, well, how fast can you say "God did it"? (It took me less than 2 seconds)

Here are two links for proof of relativity:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment and later experiments with more accurate clocks]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If you think that creationism can be adequately described as "God did it", you have no idea of creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, "God magically did it 6000 years ago, in 6 days". (8 seconds)

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If that is intended to prove that you ''do'' have a reasonable idea of creationism, you have failed miserably. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

What else is their, except for misquotations and claims that the Devil put fossils in the ground to mislead us?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Neither of those things. Spend a month reading articles [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here] and you should have a reasonable idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Proof ==

First off im an Admited Liberal and non Christian, just getting this out of the way. I have read your facts on Evolution and your facts on Creationism. I just have one question throghtout Evolution your editors and writters CONSTANTLY show the lack of evidence supporting Evolution, while when talking about Creationism you blame all lack on the fact that few scientists support the claim. Here is my quetion where is your proof. If Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct then there should be evidence besides the Holy Bibles or books or scripture, take all Religion out of the argument and either prove that Creationism has as much evidence as the THEORY of EVOLUTION (yep theory not hard fact) and you will have a case but at no time in any writtings that i have seen or lectures i have heard has any evidence, besides GOD says so, been given to support your claim. Evolution though and theory that the earth is older then a hand full of thousdand years has been given evidence through proven scientific research. I would like to point out that the church has been fighting scientific theory for a long time including the earth is round and that the stars in the night sky are far away and not just jewls hanging right above our planet, or even that the planet earth is the center of the universe. and finaly that if God created everything how come the practice of Jewdism only seemed to appear after man became a hunter/gatherer tribe set giving up a portion of there nomadic ways and appeard in a comunity that animal husbandry became comon showing a need for a "shepard to watch his flock"
thats it just show some proff of your theory

== 45% support ==
The article currently states: "Roughly 45% of the United States population identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists, and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years." Neither of the citations support that statement. As far as I can tell, the relevant surveys showed that 45% of Americans believe that God created man about 10k years ago in his present form. Nothing indicated anyone's beliefs about the age of ''the Earth'' nor the ''labels people apply to themselves''. While all YECs ''do'' believe that man was created within 10,000 years, that doesn't imply that all people who believe that man was created within 10,000 years are YECs (believe ''the Earth'' was also created then ''and identify themselves as YECs'').

Since the article is locked, I can't reword it, but something more accurate would be:

: Roughly 45% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago, which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism.

[[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 01:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Bob. That sentence was put in by a evolutionist. LOL [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is a travesty ==

Citing to "bloodletting" as an example of science's major failures is beyond ridiculous, and using it as proof of how fluctual science is, well, that's even worse. Honestly, I don't know why [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] is an admin; the edits here are shockingly bad. Can an unbiased admin have a crack at this article...

PLEASE?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Medical science is part of science. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Alchemy is wrong? Well there goes the hope of hot fusion![[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This article is one of the reasons for Conservapedia. To have articles without [[liberal]] bias. It should stay as it is. I'm sure[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] knows what he is doing.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the two are ever so slightly different... I can't tell from your sarcasm whose side you're on :-).
:::Also, JC, the purpose of Conservapedia is not to be biased towards Christianity: it's to allow Christians to air their views ''on equal footing'' with other views. Am I right? Teach the controversy?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::One of the things that bother me about this site is that the articles don't define what the subject ''is'' so much as getting straight to the refutation about why it's ''wrong''. And yes, AmesG, I do understand the difference betwixt alchemical and nuclear transmutation. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly. Leave the Christian views on an ''equal footing'' as they are.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Equal footing does ''not'' mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--[[User:M|M]] 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You're a bit slow responding to ''that'' comment! What misinformation is in the article? If I agree, I will remove/modify/clarify it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sorry if I'm posting on a dead comment; I was just skimming Conservapedia briefly before I left for class this morning. As for misinformation, there's a few things...the section on transitional fossils is simply disgraceful, for one thing. No mention whatsoever of ancestral whale fossils, the early mammal ancestors (as they split off from reptiles), the elephant or horse ancestral lines, or the australopithecines or other fossil hominids...and the two that it does mention, ''Archaeopteryx'' and ''Tiktaalik'', it dismisses for no good reason. (Referring to Archaeopteryx as a 'perching bird'...and completely disregarding the fact that it possessed ''teeth'' and a reptilian tail, for one thing!)

:::::There also seems to be some copy-pasting going on, as I've seen the following text verbatim in several different articles:
<blockquote>
According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists. This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.
</blockquote>

:::::If a Christian scientist can work on experiments involving evolutionary principles (as the great majority of genetics or biological experiments do), why is it assumed that any scientist, no matter their personal beliefs, will actively try to discriminate against valid research?

:::::(There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not.
:::::Conservapedia ''is'' supposed to be about an accurate and balanced viewpoint, isn't it?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The current article clearly denigrates evolution below the place it enjoys in the scientific canons, based on inane arguments that don't deserve to be placed here. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry if my failure at understanding sarcasm insulted you, Cracker!!! Not my intent!! I was just confused...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This whole project is a travesty. I've never been accused of being a liberal, but I can't beileve any educated, honest person would support this project. I don't understand how this project's critics can take it so seriously. Im sure you've all read the article on evolution. Like I said before the creators and supporters of this project are embarrassing themselves. - [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 20:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== spent time proofreading ==

I received a short note regarding this article concerning some suggested improvements in grammar among other things. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some areas where the article could be improved. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is ridiculous ==
Do we want credibility? Do we want to be taken seriously in the world? Do we want to get rid of the loony liberals that are ruining our country? Then we need--at a bare minimum--to accept the basic laws of physics. This article is a travesty, and it is one of the reasons why "conservative" has become synonymous with "bat s*** crazy." Can someone with half a brain and a decent understanding of the universe please fix this? Conservative should not mean "idiot," it should simply mean "conservative." Edmund Burke would be disgusted by you YECers. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:50 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is ridiculous as it stands. The article should restrict itself to decribing YEC, not refuting evolution...that is for another place.
Also, you state statistics that most Americans believe this, and that most scientists dont, then go on to say that consensus doesnt make it so. So, I guess if the Americans that were polled agree that YEC is true, that it is, and if most scientists agree that it is false, well, they be godless wizards, see Leviticus 20.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

* I am not a YEC so I am glad this article is locked. Since I have nothing contribute to a Young Earth article, I may proceed to edit Old Earth articles without a fair and balanced rebuttal here. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 18:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Excuse me, it's not locked. But only the beautiful people can edit it: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&curid=6662&diff=96819&oldid=96811] Not cool at all, gentlemen. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unprotected subpages==

I propose a technical solution: use an undocumented feature of templates to create editable subpages. I introduced this technique at Wikipedia, and it's used quite a bit for their administrative pages (see [[transclusion]], which I'll write eventually).

Anyway, just click on the "edit" button on the right side of any section under "Draft" at the top of this page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Evolution - The Resurrection ==

Regarding the last few edits, which copy-pasted entire sections from [[Theory of evolution]]:

Seriously, is this article becoming "Theory of Evolution II"? Conservative's new playground now that he may only do minor changes to Theory of Evolution?

I guess that sorta proves all the critics right - large part of that article weren't about evolution at all. It's just modular creationist talk. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Title does not fit content ==

There has got to be more content about YEC itself, but this article spends most of it's time refuting evolution. We already have an article for that ([[Theory of evolution|Criticisms of the theory of evolution]]). This should be a scholarly explanation of YEC, not a evo-bashfest. I'd love to add YEC-bashing to the [[Theory of evolution]] article, but I am one of the editors who thinks it is necessary to show restraint. Just a thought... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that much of this article is actually lifted almost word for word from the 'evolution' article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I suppose I don't have to point out the logical fallacy in using an evo article to create a YEC article. I don't even know where to start with explaining how wrong that is. Ban me now, Ban me now!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::There we go. All the stuff which appears in the 'evolution' article is now gone. Perhaps some of it is better here than there, but I'll leave that for the YECs to hash out for themselves. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::many of the major reasons why people reject the theory of evolution are the same reasons they accept young earth creationism. I see no problem with overlap. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Perhaps that means that the [[evolution]] article shouldn't defer to one perspective, then?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Ames, I have no idea what you are saying. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
The converse is a concern I have expressed to you. I am just arguing that if the YEC viewpoint is represented so very well here, maybe it shouldn't all be on the evolution page, but instead have a reference FROM the evolution page to this page. To cut down on server size and be better organized.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The panel already ruled on the theory of evolution article AmesG. It is not being gutted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

It was totally worth a try. I'm sure if we came to a consensus, though, they would respect it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but there will never be a consensus (or even a proper discussion that may lead to one) since a few sysops will shout "THE PANEL HAS DECIDED! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT! END OF DISCUSSION! ANDY AGREES!" before things can get going. Add to that the resignation after the Panel's decision, and you got a dead article, basically. *shrugs* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anyone Notice... ==
That this is almost the same article as [[evolution]]?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
: *downgrades the headline level* Yes. *points at upper two sections* And Tsumetai's deletion of the duplicate material juuuust got reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Verb number should agree with the number of the subject in a sentence. I would fix the first sentence, but, well.... And for the sake of parallelism, the evolutionary age of the universe should also be included.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 18:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:I've fixed the first sentence; thanks for pointing that out. The evolutionary age of the Earth ''is'' included, in the first sentence; I don't follow what you are getting at there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::I guess you figured it out, since you added the age of the universe on 21 April.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::No I didn't. I changed one word[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=119444&oldid=116007]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-23T13:28:03Z

M: /* 3000 BC? */

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Natural science

2007-04-23T11:47:02Z

M: This page needs some MAJOR work...

A term for both the branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts in order to formulate general laws about the natural world, and the methods by which this study is carried out, such as the ''scientific method.''

Scientific study relies on specific, fairly well-defined classifications, collectively known as the aforementioned scientific method. In one form or another, it is the means by which all scientific research is conducted.

==References==
<references/>

Big Bang theory

2007-04-23T11:40:54Z

M: Minor edit to note discrepancy in references.

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the creation of the Universe. It models the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. The Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref>. Modern galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound. <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref>
<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref>
<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html</ref> However, they do not seem to currently possess a rival theory which takes into account the CMBR.

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-23T11:37:18Z

M: /* 3000 BC? */

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2007-04-23T11:27:13Z

M: /* This article is a travesty */

{{protect|Conservative}}

=Draft=

{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/flood}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/naturalism}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/supporters}}
{{Talk:Young Earth Creationism/scientists}}

=Discussion=

== Conservative's edits ==

The total of those edits are given by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=17299&oldid=17197 this dif] Objections to these edits include: 1) the removal of material discussing radiometric dating and starlight (it isn't clear to me why that material was removed given that the YEC responses are given). Second, he has thrown in a variety of quotes. Now, whether one calls these quotes quote-mines or not(they all are, but Conservative seems to dislike this term) a number of things are clear even ignoring issues of context, at least one of these quotes is out of date (1983 !) and none of them are at all relevant. This is an article about ''Young Earth Creationism.'' None of the quotes have anything to do with that since a) they aren't talking about YECism but possible issues with certain more standard scientific viewpoints and b) they don't alter the basic issues at hand such as the age of the earth(for example, whether or not we understand how "galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe" has nothing to do with the age of the earth or whether evolution took place or whether there was a global flood or anything else relevant to YECism. Furthermore, the citation given for these quotes is another Wiki, and wikis are inherently unreliable and not useful souring. 3) The added material is poorly organized; even if it were to be included, it makes no sense as an organizational matter to have in the introduction a long list of example quotes (and certainly not before basic issues like the global flood. Furthermore, since the end of the paragraph discusses what arguments they use, it would make far more sense to put it there. I must also register concern that Conservative has unilaterally protected this article after making his own changes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::Thank your for your feedback both in this talk page and on my discussion page. I used some of your feedback to edit the material. Secondly, CreationWiki sources the '''two quotes''' I used from CreationWiki. Thirdly, I believe that old earth creationist scientist such as Dr. Ross posit that the galaxies, planets, suns, etc were formed naturally as opposed to young earth creationists who believe they were created supernaturally at least for the most part. Third, radiometric dating discussion and starlight discussion can be found in one of the footnotes I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: To you second point A wiki sourcing anything is not reliable. It doesn't matter whether it is used for one quote, 10 quotes a thousand quotes or whatever. Wikis are not reliable and should not be used for sourcing. To your third point that the quote about planetary formation is relevant because Ross believes in natural planetary formation- we aren't talking about Hugh Ross here, we are talking about YECism. If we have an article about OECism then it might be relevant there. To your fourth point, yes they are mentioned in the reference but they are both important enough and major enough to mention in the article- in its current form it does not discuss at all the mainstream evidence and the YEC responses to that evidence; it is hard for me to see how that isn't important, especially in regard to radiometric dating. Nothing you have done here in any way deals with the issue that this bad organization having a large set of quotes in the middle before you get to basic issues like who supports YECism. Nor did you address the concern about the decision to protect the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:54, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Further problems with recent edits ==

At this point, you need to read almost a full page before one even finds out who actually supports YECism. At minimum, some of the evidence should be put in a later section so the introduction can be brief and actually give the relevant introductory details. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing. ==

The section detailing the popular acceptance had a note that the acceptance rate among scientists was around 5% (and the 5% number put inside a footnote). That has been replaced with the standard DI claim that the number of scientists skeptical of certain aspects of evolution is on the rise. First, there isn't any point to it in the footnote since it isn't supporting anything in the article. If it going to be here, it should be in the article. Second, the DI claim at best is about evolution and has nothing to do with YECism. C) removal of the number, especially replacing it with the DI's (essentially unreliable, usubsuntiated claim) gives a misleading pciture. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Ok, we're getting slightly better now. Now, the DI part is still problematic. The DI 700 or so and all that has nothing to do with age of the earth or YECism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I wrote: "However, the ranks of scientists '''openly rejecting evolutionary ideas''' ([[macroevolution|macroevolutionary ideas]] posit the earth is millions of years old) is currently on the rise. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732]
The fact is that the effort in question is a very publicized effort and more scientists are signing on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Um, that this is a very publicized effort yes, the rest holds no water. First, claiming that the numbers are on the rise because more people have signed the same petition is illogical- to show a rise, one would need to show that the number of people at any given time were more than the number prior. One would presumably do that with some sort of sampling, not a compiled list. Second, this still has nothing to do with YECism. One could completely agree with that statement and still not be a YEC (heck, one could still be a mainstream scientist who completely accepts evolution and still sign that statement if one thinks that neutral drift, sexual selection and other ways of modifying the gene pool are sufficiently important). Furthermore, one could completely disagree with basic evolutionary biology claims and still not be a YEC (take Hugh Ross for example). On the whole, putting the DI's claim here is both misleading and irrelevant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:07, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== 55% - macroevolution ==

The gallup poll did not say that 55% of scientists accepted "macroevolution" indeed macroevolution was not mentioned anywhere in the poll. The poll showed that 55% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" and 39% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." This gives a total of 96% accepting descent from a common ancestor (which is what I think the editor meant by "macroevolution" in this context). 22:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Thanks for your input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

Schaller found that lionesses do 90% of the hunting and lions (males) only 10%. Furthermore the female leads the cubs to the freshly killed animal. (Rudnai 1973) This seems inconsistent with the Bible:

The lion tore enough for his whelps. (Nahum 2:12)

I didn't see how this source discredited science's claims about lions. Plus, you don't always have to be right the first time, you know. Science changes with new information. Until then, the best is done with what evidence is present. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Unproofed theories are not wrong theories ==

Hi,
I am new in Conservapedia. I think the most trouble thing here is that unproofed theories are equalized to wrong theories. But this ist wrong! Only falsifized theories are wrong.

Young Earth Creationism is a great Idea. It solves all the roblems about "time" before 6000 B.C.
But it is very very complex. It needs a creator. And this creator has a high complexity.
Most scientists look for the simplest solution for a problem, not any.

Einstein for example searched for the simplest way to solve relative speed and found a way in last century. It is a theorie, not the truth. It has not been falsifized jet. So we can trust.
So did Darwin. He tried to find a simple solution for flora and fauna. And he found a very simple theorie, that has not been falsifized jet.

Yound Earth Creationists try to falsifize the theory. But to falifize you need proofs. Not the lack of proofs. Not to find something is not a proof that is not there.
Sorry, we have to work harder to make Young Earth Creationism to a theory to be proud of. It has to be the simplest imaginalble!

It took Einstein and his colleagues years to figure out relativity, believe me when I say both the math and the concepts behind it are extremely complicated.
Whereas creationism can be explained in, well, how fast can you say "God did it"? (It took me less than 2 seconds)

Here are two links for proof of relativity:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment and later experiments with more accurate clocks]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If you think that creationism can be adequately described as "God did it", you have no idea of creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, "God magically did it 6000 years ago, in 6 days". (8 seconds)

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If that is intended to prove that you ''do'' have a reasonable idea of creationism, you have failed miserably. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

What else is their, except for misquotations and claims that the Devil put fossils in the ground to mislead us?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Neither of those things. Spend a month reading articles [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here] and you should have a reasonable idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Proof ==

First off im an Admited Liberal and non Christian, just getting this out of the way. I have read your facts on Evolution and your facts on Creationism. I just have one question throghtout Evolution your editors and writters CONSTANTLY show the lack of evidence supporting Evolution, while when talking about Creationism you blame all lack on the fact that few scientists support the claim. Here is my quetion where is your proof. If Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct then there should be evidence besides the Holy Bibles or books or scripture, take all Religion out of the argument and either prove that Creationism has as much evidence as the THEORY of EVOLUTION (yep theory not hard fact) and you will have a case but at no time in any writtings that i have seen or lectures i have heard has any evidence, besides GOD says so, been given to support your claim. Evolution though and theory that the earth is older then a hand full of thousdand years has been given evidence through proven scientific research. I would like to point out that the church has been fighting scientific theory for a long time including the earth is round and that the stars in the night sky are far away and not just jewls hanging right above our planet, or even that the planet earth is the center of the universe. and finaly that if God created everything how come the practice of Jewdism only seemed to appear after man became a hunter/gatherer tribe set giving up a portion of there nomadic ways and appeard in a comunity that animal husbandry became comon showing a need for a "shepard to watch his flock"
thats it just show some proff of your theory

== 45% support ==
The article currently states: "Roughly 45% of the United States population identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists, and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years." Neither of the citations support that statement. As far as I can tell, the relevant surveys showed that 45% of Americans believe that God created man about 10k years ago in his present form. Nothing indicated anyone's beliefs about the age of ''the Earth'' nor the ''labels people apply to themselves''. While all YECs ''do'' believe that man was created within 10,000 years, that doesn't imply that all people who believe that man was created within 10,000 years are YECs (believe ''the Earth'' was also created then ''and identify themselves as YECs'').

Since the article is locked, I can't reword it, but something more accurate would be:

: Roughly 45% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago, which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism.

[[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 01:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Bob. That sentence was put in by a evolutionist. LOL [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is a travesty ==

Citing to "bloodletting" as an example of science's major failures is beyond ridiculous, and using it as proof of how fluctual science is, well, that's even worse. Honestly, I don't know why [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] is an admin; the edits here are shockingly bad. Can an unbiased admin have a crack at this article...

PLEASE?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Medical science is part of science. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Alchemy is wrong? Well there goes the hope of hot fusion![[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This article is one of the reasons for Conservapedia. To have articles without [[liberal]] bias. It should stay as it is. I'm sure[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] knows what he is doing.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the two are ever so slightly different... I can't tell from your sarcasm whose side you're on :-).
:::Also, JC, the purpose of Conservapedia is not to be biased towards Christianity: it's to allow Christians to air their views ''on equal footing'' with other views. Am I right? Teach the controversy?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::One of the things that bother me about this site is that the articles don't define what the subject ''is'' so much as getting straight to the refutation about why it's ''wrong''. And yes, AmesG, I do understand the difference betwixt alchemical and nuclear transmutation. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly. Leave the Christian views on an ''equal footing'' as they are.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Equal footing does ''not'' mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--[[User:M|M]] 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::The current article clearly denigrates evolution below the place it enjoys in the scientific canons, based on inane arguments that don't deserve to be placed here. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry if my failure at understanding sarcasm insulted you, Cracker!!! Not my intent!! I was just confused...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This whole project is a travesty. I've never been accused of being a liberal, but I can't beileve any educated, honest person would support this project. I don't understand how this project's critics can take it so seriously. Im sure you've all read the article on evolution. Like I said before the creators and supporters of this project are embarrassing themselves. - [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 20:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== spent time proofreading ==

I received a short note regarding this article concerning some suggested improvements in grammar among other things. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some areas where the article could be improved. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is ridiculous ==
Do we want credibility? Do we want to be taken seriously in the world? Do we want to get rid of the loony liberals that are ruining our country? Then we need--at a bare minimum--to accept the basic laws of physics. This article is a travesty, and it is one of the reasons why "conservative" has become synonymous with "bat s*** crazy." Can someone with half a brain and a decent understanding of the universe please fix this? Conservative should not mean "idiot," it should simply mean "conservative." Edmund Burke would be disgusted by you YECers. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:50 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is ridiculous as it stands. The article should restrict itself to decribing YEC, not refuting evolution...that is for another place.
Also, you state statistics that most Americans believe this, and that most scientists dont, then go on to say that consensus doesnt make it so. So, I guess if the Americans that were polled agree that YEC is true, that it is, and if most scientists agree that it is false, well, they be godless wizards, see Leviticus 20.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

* I am not a YEC so I am glad this article is locked. Since I have nothing contribute to a Young Earth article, I may proceed to edit Old Earth articles without a fair and balanced rebuttal here. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 18:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Excuse me, it's not locked. But only the beautiful people can edit it: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&curid=6662&diff=96819&oldid=96811] Not cool at all, gentlemen. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unprotected subpages==

I propose a technical solution: use an undocumented feature of templates to create editable subpages. I introduced this technique at Wikipedia, and it's used quite a bit for their administrative pages (see [[transclusion]], which I'll write eventually).

Anyway, just click on the "edit" button on the right side of any section under "Draft" at the top of this page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Evolution - The Resurrection ==

Regarding the last few edits, which copy-pasted entire sections from [[Theory of evolution]]:

Seriously, is this article becoming "Theory of Evolution II"? Conservative's new playground now that he may only do minor changes to Theory of Evolution?

I guess that sorta proves all the critics right - large part of that article weren't about evolution at all. It's just modular creationist talk. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Title does not fit content ==

There has got to be more content about YEC itself, but this article spends most of it's time refuting evolution. We already have an article for that ([[Theory of evolution|Criticisms of the theory of evolution]]). This should be a scholarly explanation of YEC, not a evo-bashfest. I'd love to add YEC-bashing to the [[Theory of evolution]] article, but I am one of the editors who thinks it is necessary to show restraint. Just a thought... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that much of this article is actually lifted almost word for word from the 'evolution' article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I suppose I don't have to point out the logical fallacy in using an evo article to create a YEC article. I don't even know where to start with explaining how wrong that is. Ban me now, Ban me now!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::There we go. All the stuff which appears in the 'evolution' article is now gone. Perhaps some of it is better here than there, but I'll leave that for the YECs to hash out for themselves. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::many of the major reasons why people reject the theory of evolution are the same reasons they accept young earth creationism. I see no problem with overlap. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Perhaps that means that the [[evolution]] article shouldn't defer to one perspective, then?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Ames, I have no idea what you are saying. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
The converse is a concern I have expressed to you. I am just arguing that if the YEC viewpoint is represented so very well here, maybe it shouldn't all be on the evolution page, but instead have a reference FROM the evolution page to this page. To cut down on server size and be better organized.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The panel already ruled on the theory of evolution article AmesG. It is not being gutted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

It was totally worth a try. I'm sure if we came to a consensus, though, they would respect it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but there will never be a consensus (or even a proper discussion that may lead to one) since a few sysops will shout "THE PANEL HAS DECIDED! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT! END OF DISCUSSION! ANDY AGREES!" before things can get going. Add to that the resignation after the Panel's decision, and you got a dead article, basically. *shrugs* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anyone Notice... ==
That this is almost the same article as [[evolution]]?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
: *downgrades the headline level* Yes. *points at upper two sections* And Tsumetai's deletion of the duplicate material juuuust got reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Verb number should agree with the number of the subject in a sentence. I would fix the first sentence, but, well.... And for the sake of parallelism, the evolutionary age of the universe should also be included.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 18:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:I've fixed the first sentence; thanks for pointing that out. The evolutionary age of the Earth ''is'' included, in the first sentence; I don't follow what you are getting at there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::I guess you figured it out, since you added the age of the universe on 21 April.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::No I didn't. I changed one word[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=119444&oldid=116007]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-04-23T11:21:50Z

M: YEC Citations

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-04-23T11:11:53Z

M: /* Article split */

Buffalo

2007-04-20T14:47:12Z

M: This page needs some major work...

A term for several somewhat-related species, cousins to the domestic cow; the most famous variant of buffalo are the North American Bison, which had reached dangerously low population levels due to over-hunting by the mid-Twentieth Century but which have since begun to slowly rebound.

Douglas Adams

2007-04-20T14:40:46Z

M: Something wrong with the footnotes...

'''Douglas Adams''' was the author of the bestselling book ''[[The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy]]'', based on his scripts for the radio series of the same title.

''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'' was followed by ''The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'', ''Life, The Universe, and Everything'', ''So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish'', and ''Mostly Harmless''. He has also written two books about a figure named Dirk Gently; ''Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency'' and ''Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul''.

In 1990, Adams traveled around the world with zoologist Mark Carwardine to write ''Last Chance to See'', a book about endangered species and the people who work to help them. At the time of his death Adams was working on his eighth novel ''The Salmon of Doubt,'' which in its incomplete published form centers again on Dirk Gently, although Adams had spoken about the possibility of changing it to another Hitchhiker novel. The book also contains several short stories and essays, including discussion of the author's [[atheist|atheism]].

''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'' started as a radio show on BBC in 1978 and has later been converted into novels, a TV-show, movies, a record album and a computer game.

Douglas Adams was born in Cambridge, UK, in March 1952 and died of heart attack in May 2001. He was an environmental activist, an avid technologist, and described himself as "a radical [[atheist]]." [[Richard Dawkins]], a close friend and fellow atheist, dedicated his book "The God Delusion" to his memory.

During his life, he won three Golden Pans and several other awards.

On Adams' death, the noted British writer [[Richard Dawkins]] had the following to say about his friend:

<blockquote>
" Science has lost a friend, literature has lost a luminary, the mountain gorilla and the black rhino have lost a gallant defender (he once climbed Kilimanjaro in a rhino suit to raise money to fight the cretinous trade in rhino horn), Apple Computer has lost its most eloquent apologist. And I have lost an irreplaceable intellectual companion and one of the kindest and funniest men I ever met."<ref>http://edge.org/documents/adams_index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

==References==
http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/bio.html
<references/>

[[Category:Authors|Adams, Douglas]]

Douglas Adams

2007-04-20T14:37:44Z

M: Figured a quote from a friend on his death would make a nice end to the entry.

Loch Ness Monster

2007-04-20T13:08:27Z

M: /* The Zeuglodon */ Edited for grammar...

The '''Loch Ness monster''', also known as Nessie, is a well known [[cryptid]] claimed to live in [[Loch Ness]], a large lake in Scotland. Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported.

==Nessie's Identity==

There are numerous theories on what the identity of Nessie is, but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Loch Ness monster enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]].

===The Plesiosaur===
[[Plesiosaur]] is actually a broad term for extinct marine [[reptiles]] with long necks and flippers, but no one knows what type of plesiosaur the Loch Ness monster is. The elasmosaur, one of the largest of the plesiosaurs, is the considered to be the best candidate of those animals. There are others that also fit the description.

The infamous photographs taken by Robert H. Rines fit the plesiosaur theory, but with their confirmation as hoaxes they cannot be used as evidence. Plesiosaurs are generally believed to have died off approximately 70 million years ago, and while the survival of ''Coelocanth'' gives hope to cryptozoologists, the difficulties of a large, air-breathing reptile never being decisively spotted seem to speak against the possibility of a surviving plesiosaur. In addition, especially for as large a creature as a plesiosaur, the relative dearth of fish in Loch Ness would speak against the capability for supporting an isolated population of large animals.

===The Eel===
Probably the most scientifically plausible theory is that the Loch Ness monster could be an eel. Eels fit the hump description much better than the plesiosaur, but one of its faults is that the monster often sticks its head up out of the water, a characteristic not usually attributed to the eel. Another is that no eel has been found that reaches the alleged length of the Loch Ness monster. The largest known eel, the conger eel, reaches about 10 feet long and about 250 to 350 pounds.

===The Zeuglodon===
The [[zeuglodon]], or [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender, fairly serpentine whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but a few could conceivably have survived to today. The alleged monster of Okanagan, referred to as Ogopogo, also seems to be this sort of creature. The zeuglodon may actually be too large however; they grew to over 70 feet in length, yet tales of the size of the Loch Ness monster do not seem to exceed around 50 feet in length. It also shares one of the problems that the eel has; it doesn't have a long neck to stick out of the water.

==Other explanations==

===Trees===
The most likely explanation for many of the sightings was described in [[New Scientist]] as a rotting tree. As sunken trees rot they release a gas that could rise to the top of the surface, the trunk and branches of such trees resemble what many of the sightings claim to see. <ref>“The Loch Ness Saga,” by Dr. Maurice Burton, New Scientist, June 24, 1982, p. 872; July 1, 1982, pp. 41-42; July 8, 1982, pp. 112-113.</ref>

===Boat wakes===
Due to the shape of the lake, boat wakes in can create large standing waves that appear to rise above the lake. These elongated shapes might explain many of the sightings. <ref>http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/research/staff/s-araya/currents.htm#Internal%20progressive%20waves</ref>

==History of alleged Sightings==
What may be the first sighting of the Loch Ness monster was in 565 AD by the missionary [[Saint Columba]], who was visiting [[Scotland]] to spread the [[Gospel]]. He needed to cross the loch, so one of his followers swam out in the water to reach their boat, which had not been tied properly and had floated away from shore. Then a large creature arose from the water and seemed that it was going to devour the man. Saint Columba ordered the rest of his followers to be quiet, and in the name of [[Jesus]] rebuked the monster. The creature drew back "as if pulled by ropes" and the man was left unharmed.

The modern history of Nessie began in 1933 when a new road was completed along the northern shore of the Loch, providing easy access to unobstructed views of the water. Soon after this, a couple spotted an "enormous animal" in the Loch. The ''Inverness Courier'' wrote up their sighting, describing what they saw as a "monster;" intense media interest followed; and thus was born the modern legend of the Loch Ness Monster.

On November 12, 1933, Hugh Gray was walking back from [[church]] when he saw an "object of considerable dimensions—making a big splash with spray on the surface" of the Loch. Luckily he had his [[camera]] with him, so he began taking pictures. Only one of the pictures showed anything. Nessie believers hailed it as the first photographic evidence of the monster. Skeptics, however, dismissed it as a blurry mess that doesn't show anything at all

On April 19, 1934, Colonel Robert Wilson, a surgeon, was driving along the north shore of the Loch early in the morning when he noticed something large moving in the water, so he stopped and took a picture of it. At least, that was his story. For the next sixty years this picture was regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence of Nessie's existence and was known as the Surgeon's Photo. It wasn't until 1994 that the full truth came out. What Wilson had taken a picture of was not the Loch Ness Monster. It was a toy [[dinosaur]]'s head attached to a toy [[submarine]] . Moreover, Wilson hadn't even taken the infamous photograph. He had simply been the frontman for an elaborate [[hoax]].

===Other Scottish Monsters===
There is another creature reputed to be living in Loch Morar.<ref>http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm</ref> It may be a close relative of the monster in Loch Ness. The Scottish parliament has recently initiated an investigation to determine if a breeding program could be established.

Whatever the Loch Ness monster may be, nearly all scientists are still unconvinced of its existence.

==References==
*http://www.cryptozoology.com/
*http://www.nessie.co.uk/
*http://www.britishcongerclub.org.uk/
*http://www.museumofhoaxes.com
*http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm
[[Category: Biology]]

Loch Ness Monster

2007-04-20T13:07:32Z

M: /* The Plesiosaur */ Edited for accuracy

The '''Loch Ness monster''', also known as Nessie, is a well known [[cryptid]] claimed to live in [[Loch Ness]], a large lake in Scotland. Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported.

==Nessie's Identity==

There are numerous theories on what the identity of Nessie is, but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Loch Ness monster enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]].

===The Plesiosaur===
[[Plesiosaur]] is actually a broad term for extinct marine [[reptiles]] with long necks and flippers, but no one knows what type of plesiosaur the Loch Ness monster is. The elasmosaur, one of the largest of the plesiosaurs, is the considered to be the best candidate of those animals. There are others that also fit the description.

The infamous photographs taken by Robert H. Rines fit the plesiosaur theory, but with their confirmation as hoaxes they cannot be used as evidence. Plesiosaurs are generally believed to have died off approximately 70 million years ago, and while the survival of ''Coelocanth'' gives hope to cryptozoologists, the difficulties of a large, air-breathing reptile never being decisively spotted seem to speak against the possibility of a surviving plesiosaur. In addition, especially for as large a creature as a plesiosaur, the relative dearth of fish in Loch Ness would speak against the capability for supporting an isolated population of large animals.

===The Eel===
Probably the most scientifically plausible theory is that the Loch Ness monster could be an eel. Eels fit the hump description much better than the plesiosaur, but one of its faults is that the monster often sticks its head up out of the water, a characteristic not usually attributed to the eel. Another is that no eel has been found that reaches the alleged length of the Loch Ness monster. The largest known eel, the conger eel, reaches about 10 feet long and about 250 to 350 pounds.

===The Zeuglodon===
The [[zeuglodon]], or the [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but it a few may be around today. The alleged monster of Okanagan, referred to as Ogopogo, also seems to be this sort of creature. The zeuglodon may actually be too large however; they grew to over 70 feet in length, yet tales of the size of the Loch Ness monster do not seem to exceed around 50 feet in length. It also shares one of the problems that the eel has; it doesn't have a long neck to stick out of the water.

==Other explanations==

===Trees===
The most likely explanation for many of the sightings was described in [[New Scientist]] as a rotting tree. As sunken trees rot they release a gas that could rise to the top of the surface, the trunk and branches of such trees resemble what many of the sightings claim to see. <ref>“The Loch Ness Saga,” by Dr. Maurice Burton, New Scientist, June 24, 1982, p. 872; July 1, 1982, pp. 41-42; July 8, 1982, pp. 112-113.</ref>

===Boat wakes===
Due to the shape of the lake, boat wakes in can create large standing waves that appear to rise above the lake. These elongated shapes might explain many of the sightings. <ref>http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/research/staff/s-araya/currents.htm#Internal%20progressive%20waves</ref>

==History of alleged Sightings==
What may be the first sighting of the Loch Ness monster was in 565 AD by the missionary [[Saint Columba]], who was visiting [[Scotland]] to spread the [[Gospel]]. He needed to cross the loch, so one of his followers swam out in the water to reach their boat, which had not been tied properly and had floated away from shore. Then a large creature arose from the water and seemed that it was going to devour the man. Saint Columba ordered the rest of his followers to be quiet, and in the name of [[Jesus]] rebuked the monster. The creature drew back "as if pulled by ropes" and the man was left unharmed.

The modern history of Nessie began in 1933 when a new road was completed along the northern shore of the Loch, providing easy access to unobstructed views of the water. Soon after this, a couple spotted an "enormous animal" in the Loch. The ''Inverness Courier'' wrote up their sighting, describing what they saw as a "monster;" intense media interest followed; and thus was born the modern legend of the Loch Ness Monster.

On November 12, 1933, Hugh Gray was walking back from [[church]] when he saw an "object of considerable dimensions—making a big splash with spray on the surface" of the Loch. Luckily he had his [[camera]] with him, so he began taking pictures. Only one of the pictures showed anything. Nessie believers hailed it as the first photographic evidence of the monster. Skeptics, however, dismissed it as a blurry mess that doesn't show anything at all

On April 19, 1934, Colonel Robert Wilson, a surgeon, was driving along the north shore of the Loch early in the morning when he noticed something large moving in the water, so he stopped and took a picture of it. At least, that was his story. For the next sixty years this picture was regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence of Nessie's existence and was known as the Surgeon's Photo. It wasn't until 1994 that the full truth came out. What Wilson had taken a picture of was not the Loch Ness Monster. It was a toy [[dinosaur]]'s head attached to a toy [[submarine]] . Moreover, Wilson hadn't even taken the infamous photograph. He had simply been the frontman for an elaborate [[hoax]].

===Other Scottish Monsters===
There is another creature reputed to be living in Loch Morar.<ref>http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm</ref> It may be a close relative of the monster in Loch Ness. The Scottish parliament has recently initiated an investigation to determine if a breeding program could be established.

Whatever the Loch Ness monster may be, nearly all scientists are still unconvinced of its existence.

==References==
*http://www.cryptozoology.com/
*http://www.nessie.co.uk/
*http://www.britishcongerclub.org.uk/
*http://www.museumofhoaxes.com
*http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm
[[Category: Biology]]

Dragons

2007-04-20T13:02:39Z

M: Touching up a bit...

Dragons are creatures frequently mentioned in folklore and fantasy stories, however they are also mentioned repeatedly in the Bible.

It is accepted that the "myths" are loosely based based on real creatures such as [[snakes]] (especially in European folklore), [[alligators]], and [[crocodiles]]. Legendary sea serpents such as [[Loch Ness]], Ogopogo, Gaasyendietha and Argont have never been proven to exist, but some believe that they originate from folk memories of [[dinosaur]]s<ref>"In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."(Isaiah 27:1) </ref>. [[Crocodiles]] in particular are perfect candidates for legends of sea dragons, as they have been recorded to grow to truly impressive sizes in some cases, and the fear and hatred of snakes, particularly venomous snakes, is historically common wherever Christianity has taken root.

Saint George, Saint Mercurialis, first bishop of the city of Forlì, Saint Julian of Le Mans, Saint Veran, Saint Crescentinus, Saint Margaret of Antioch, Saint Martha, and Saint Leonard of Noblac are a few of the people whose legends include dragons of some type.

Though European dragons are almost always regarded as evil, or at the least, mere predators, dragons in Eastern mythology tend to be regarded as divine creatures, as often benevolent as neutral or evil.

==References==
<references/>

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

Dog

2007-04-19T18:16:37Z

M: Wolves are dangerous, maybe...dogs, not so much.

'''Dogs''', colloquially known as "man's best friend", are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]] (given the scientific name Canis lupus familiaris), divided into a multitude of different breeds all capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example). They are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for upwards of ten thousand years; in Biblical times, they had already been coexisting with humans long enough for it to be regarded as the natural order of things.

It is likely, based on genetic evidence, that the oldest breeds of dog originate in [[Asia]], and that thus the domestic dog originated there; similar research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers of the [[America]]s brought dogs of some sort with them.

Dogs are used for many purposes

*Guarding property and livestock.

*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]].

*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain rescue.

*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]].

*Providing assistance to blind and deaf people.

*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s.

*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges and dogcarts.

* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles and walk the tightrope.

And historically,

* For fighting, now illegal in most places.

*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today.

Today most dogs are kept for companionship only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and livestock.

[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Mammals]]

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-04-18T14:49:42Z

M: /* Article split */

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-04-18T14:41:13Z

M: /* Subterranean Salt Deposits */

== List of criticisms ==

Despite suggesting that this is the place for criticisms of flood geology, I'm deleting the list that Cgday put in this article for the following reasons:
# Because it is a copy and paste from a discussion forum on [http://uselessjunk.net/viewtopic.php?p=2459938&sid=3fc7ec562d310602fdb812187fb662ab another web-site]. Conservapedia articles are supposed to be original content.
# Because a list of this format and length is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
# The list is introduced with the comment, "'This list is to establish that those criticisms have been raised, not to suggest they have any weight". If that is all, then ''mentioning'' the fact and putting a link in a footnote is sufficient.
# Also on that comment, and to use an analogy, an article on the moon landings that listed criticisms (that they were faked) simply on the grounds that they have been raised is ludicrous. Surely the criticisms should have some validity before being included/mentioned/etc.
# I doubt that a forum post would be considered an acceptable source even for linking to in a footnote.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:: just as a point of clarification - it's not copied from there but they did copy that from my original source. Never mind, I'll construct the list from scratch - Peer reviewed journals are fine as sources right? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I shouldn't worry. If we start to put too much science in User:Conservative will lock the page and replace it with quotes. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That site was the only one that showed up on a Google search, although another search earlier in the day (probably with a slightly different search string) did show up another one that was very similar. But I'm not disputing you on that point.
::: Yes, peer-reviewed journals are okay as sources. But please keep in mind comments 2, 3, and 4 in my post above.
::: Also, please avoid arguments that rely on assuming uniformitarian geology to be true, as that is the logical fallacy of begging the question. A number of the arguments on that list did that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Dating==
From the Article: "'''On this basis, archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood cannot be used to invalidate the date of the flood because they are based on the presumption that there was no Flood.'''"

But we know that there ''were'' civilisations before the flood?
Just checking. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 10:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Good point; I'll have to clarify that. (By the way, it is still a work in progress.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, archaeological dates that purport to show that any civilization ''spanned'' the year of the [[Great Flood]] ought not be used, because they presume that there was no Flood. Yes, at least one civilization existed before the Flood. But the Flood destroyed it. An artifact--called an [[out-of-place artifact]]--might persist from that [[antediluvian civilization]]. But it would not be part of any ''post''-diluvian civilization.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually, when you think about who needs to provide the burden of proof on this matter those who believe that there was a flood need to provide the proof. Those who do not believe that there was a flood only has to be shown proof that there was a flood. To discredit evidence on the basis that there was a flood and therefore the evidence is not valid due to the impossibility of existence because of the flood leads to forming the research around the idea instead of forming the idea around the observations. This is contrary to impartial research.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You haven't explained why it is that the burden of proof is on supporters of the flood.
::::I wonder what "those who do not believe that there was a flood" would consider to be "proof". I suspect that they would not be convinced even if a lot of supportive evidence was offered.
::::Your comment about discrediting evidence on the basis that there was a flood misses TerryH's point. First, a date is not "evidence" itself (you don't dig up dates), it is a calculation based on evidence and assumptions. Second, TerryH was talking about such dates that are calculated ''presuming'' that there was no flood. To use dates based on the ''presumption'' that there was no flood to show that there was no flood is a circular argument, and it is quite proper to exclude them.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
You seem to argue here that assuming part of your argument takes analysis outside the realm of science - at least that's what TerryH argues, when he says that "assuming there was no flood" makes it not good science. Conceding this point ''arguendo'', I'd like to cross apply your reasoning, and broaden its scope: assuming part of an argument does invalidate the argument, I will phrase it. Applying this to creation science, which Philip concedes assumes a creator, it is clear that [[creation science]] is also bad science.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:If that comment is a response to mine, I don't know what you are referring to, as I didn't mention anything about "the realm of science". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Realm of science, meaning, "good science."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't mention anything about "good science" either, so that answer was less than helpful. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Subterranean Salt Deposits==

There is a band of sea-deposited salt that underlies many sedimentary rocks stretching from West of Ireland into Russia. Would any 'flood-geologist' please explain this.{{unsigned|LateralQuercus}}
.{{unsigned|LateralQuercus}}
:I'm not a geologist but I know a bit about flood geology. But not knowing the deposits that you are referring to, this is not enough information on which to comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Why not?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Probably because he doesn't want to comment on something about which he doesn't possess information? Can't blame him for it.--[[User:M|M]] 10:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bisexuality

2007-04-16T14:56:14Z

M: /* Skeptic's Annotated Bible */

== Origins? ==

Do we need an entry on the origins of this? If we do not need an entry on the "origins" of [[homosexuality]], then why bisexuality? [[user:airdish|airdish]] 20:20, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

:Important to consider the cultural etiolation of these behaviors in promoting sexual immorality and sexual license. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::But that's not what "Origins" implies and that's not what the article is about. Origins implies that this is where bisexuality started. Bisexuality is not something that just starts, I mean, someone didn't invent bisexuality. I agree that a section on historical examples of bisexuality is appropriate, and maybe even there is justification for describing how this affected Greek culture, example. But "origins"?, no. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just a note...not all religions view bisexuality (or even homosexuality) as immoral. This doesn't seem to be as clear-cut a distinction as, say, murder or theft. (The "hookup" culture is just plain foolish, though...a perfect breeding ground for disease.) --[[User:M|M]] 10:52, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Where are the citations for the first section 'The Bible on Bisexuality'? How can this site claim to be an encyclopaedia of any worth if it does not cite it's sources?

*DunsScotus, would you please remove the section on sexual immorality in young women. It's in appropriate and little more than a rant. Whatever you think of "Joe Francis" and "Girls Gone Wild", it has no place being here. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Airdish, if you were aware of current events, you'd know that a number of recent books on sexual morality, the 'hookup' culture, and the harm that this license does to young women have been published recently. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/10/national/main2555714.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2555714] I don't think it is inappropriate to consider the harm that negative aspects of secularist culture does to our young. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Skeptic's Annotated Bible ==
To (mis)quote Martin Luther, "Show me where the error is." If you're going to chuck them, it should be for a better reason than "I don't like them". --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

If that's the '''only''' thing somebody is citing, including at the expense of the Bible itself, eight times in their article and they're claiming it's for "biblical accuracy", something is up, obviously. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry; it's the only online Bible source I know of off the top of my head. Would citing BibleGateway be OK?--[[User:M|M]] 10:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, the Bible only forbids male homosexuality. Odd, that. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I see no way around Romans 1:26. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:So Jewish lesbians are all right, then? --[[User:M|M]] 10:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bisexuality

2007-04-16T14:52:50Z

M: /* Origins? */

== Origins? ==

Do we need an entry on the origins of this? If we do not need an entry on the "origins" of [[homosexuality]], then why bisexuality? [[user:airdish|airdish]] 20:20, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

:Important to consider the cultural etiolation of these behaviors in promoting sexual immorality and sexual license. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::But that's not what "Origins" implies and that's not what the article is about. Origins implies that this is where bisexuality started. Bisexuality is not something that just starts, I mean, someone didn't invent bisexuality. I agree that a section on historical examples of bisexuality is appropriate, and maybe even there is justification for describing how this affected Greek culture, example. But "origins"?, no. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just a note...not all religions view bisexuality (or even homosexuality) as immoral. This doesn't seem to be as clear-cut a distinction as, say, murder or theft. (The "hookup" culture is just plain foolish, though...a perfect breeding ground for disease.) --[[User:M|M]] 10:52, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Where are the citations for the first section 'The Bible on Bisexuality'? How can this site claim to be an encyclopaedia of any worth if it does not cite it's sources?

*DunsScotus, would you please remove the section on sexual immorality in young women. It's in appropriate and little more than a rant. Whatever you think of "Joe Francis" and "Girls Gone Wild", it has no place being here. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Airdish, if you were aware of current events, you'd know that a number of recent books on sexual morality, the 'hookup' culture, and the harm that this license does to young women have been published recently. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/10/national/main2555714.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2555714] I don't think it is inappropriate to consider the harm that negative aspects of secularist culture does to our young. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Skeptic's Annotated Bible ==
To (mis)quote Martin Luther, "Show me where the error is." If you're going to chuck them, it should be for a better reason than "I don't like them". --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

If that's the '''only''' thing somebody is citing, including at the expense of the Bible itself, eight times in their article and they're claiming it's for "biblical accuracy", something is up, obviously. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, the Bible only forbids male homosexuality. Odd, that. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I see no way around Romans 1:26. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Flood Geology

2007-04-11T13:39:32Z

M: /* Common Criticisms */

Flood geology is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Genesis account is true and accurate, and that evidence of the Flood can be found in the geology of the Earth.

Until the rise of uniformitarian geology in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But James Hutton proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "scriptural geologists" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.

Flood geologists propose that such a world-wide, year-long flood would have caused massive erosion, sedimentation, and geological movements, and leaving plenty of evidence in the geological record. Many propose that there was a single continent before the flood that broke up during the flood. The idea of tectonic plate movement was proposed by creationary scientist Antonio Snider in 1859, although it was not until several other scientists had proposed similar ideas that the idea was adopted by mainstream scientists in the last few decades of the 20th century.

According to flood geologists, the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

Flood geology also proposes that the flood waters swept together and buried large mats of vegetation ripped from the surface of the Earth, forming the coal beds that are mined today.

== Common Criticisms ==

It does not appear that there is enough water on the Earth to actually cause a worldwide flood, or ever has been; in addition, many archaeological records (notably tree-ring records and the records of various early civilizations, including Egypt and Sumeria) stretch through the period of time most often given as that of the Great Flood, without any actual reference to such an event.

==References==

<references/>

Biblical literalism

2007-04-11T13:35:49Z

M: Fleshing it out a bit...

Biblical literalism is a [[theological]] term, often attributed to the views of fundamentalists and religious fanatics, which means taking the [[Bible]] at face value, as a completely literal telling of events. Given the many self-contradictions and seemingly impossible events occurring throughout the [[Bible]] (ceasing the Earth's rotation, a tower reaching up to Heaven, a global flood, etc), it cannot be viewed as a scientifically defensible position.

It is related to -- and sometimes can encompass -- [[Biblical infallibility]].

Big Bang theory

2007-04-11T13:32:25Z

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' models the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 14 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation. This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. The Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref>. Modern galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists hotly contest the Big Bang Theory. They trace lineages in the Bible to estimate the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.

In contrast to young earth creationists, [[Old Earth Creationists|Old Earth Creationists]] and [[Theistic Evolution|Theistic evolutionists]] agree that the Big Bang occured.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/]</ref>. Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionist argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> However, the Bible makes no mention of a "Big Bang", instead speaking in terms of firmament and a celestial ocean (the "waters below" and "waters above"), a feature found in much early thought.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Komodo dragon

2007-04-11T05:15:54Z

M: /* Reproduction */

The '''Komodo Dragon''' is a huge, savage, carnivorous reptile, and the largest living species of monitor lizard. They are found on the [[Indonesia]]n islands of Komodo, Rintja and Padar and have recently colonised the large island of Flores.

Komodo dragons exhibit insular [[gigantism]]; <ref>http://hoopermuseum.earthsci.carleton.ca/gigantic/insular.htm</ref> although they have a relatively low metabolism, their strength and powerful jaws allow them to remain the apex predators on the isolated islands where they live. Komodo dragons are not "fire breathing [[dragons]]" or dinosaurs; they are, however, a creature of impressive size and danger that should be treated with care, as they have been known to attack lone humans when threatened or hungry. More normally they feed upon [[deer]] and feral [[goat]]s.

[[Though not actually [[venomous]], they carry several strains of [[bacteria]] in their saliva]], encouraging severe infections in any bite they cause. Komodo dragons will commonly charge a prey animal, bite it, then follow at their leisure while they wait for the creature to succumb to the infection, which generally occurs within a matter of hours.

== Reproduction ==

Recently, two well-authenticated cases of [[virgin birth]]s through parthenogenesis have been reported for Komodo dragons in [[Europe]]an zoos. <ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061220-virgin-dragons.html</ref> This ability to reproduce despite the absence of other individuals is another trait commonly found among insular organisms.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

American Civil War

2007-04-11T05:13:13Z

M: /* Fort Sumter */ Undoing vandalism...this page does seem incomplete, though.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|The Civil War
1861 - 1865
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State:
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretaries of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretaries of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''American Civil War''' was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. The bloodiest war ever fought on American soil, it involved casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, roughly three percent of the country's total population.

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

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

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

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

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

Southern life was set by a landed gentry, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, kindness towards those of inferior status, a code of honor among equals, and a gallantry towards women.

The money made from cotton was spent on goods manufactured in the North, as well as imports from Europe. They had a taste for well-bred horses, quality firearms, foxhounds, and the belles from fine Southern families. And they also studied assiduously the arts of war, often spending large sums of money to send themselves or their sons to military schools. One Mississippi planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South "did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms." (TL 1, pg 12)

But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves, versus more than 21 million in the North. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing [[rolled iron]], one which produced [[gunpowder]], and none capable of producing [[firearms]]; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in Massachusetts alone. More than 70% of all [[railroad]] mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.

===[[Slavery]]===
[[Image:Whippedslave.JPG|thumb|150px|right|Unknown slave prior to 1860, showing the scars of one, or more, brutal whippings.]]
Before the Civil War, the individual states, particularly in the South, shared a belief that each state was sovereign. Sovereignty included jurisdiction over, and the handling of, each state's affairs, which invariably included their own public and private institutions.

Yet the "peculiar institution" cited more often than anything else in defending states' rights was the Southern institution of slavery. Africans had been present as slaves since just after the first English colonists arrived early in the 17th century; over the years the South began to see it less as an evil and more of a necessity; so ingrained into the fabric had slavery become that Vice President John C. Calhoun was to say in 1838:
:''"many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political evil. That folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world."'' (TL 1, pg 40)

The slaves for the most part were treated brutally. Born in bondage, a slave usually began his first work in the fields at the age of twelve. They would work in the fields from the light of day until, in the words of a Louisiana slave, "until it is too dark to see, and when the moon is full, they often labor until the middle of the night" (TL, pg 48). They were fed and clothed poorly, usually in rags; shoes were uncommon. Disease was rampant; four out of 100 lived past age 60. And they were required to absolute respect to a white. Punishment for infractions was severe, involving stocks, pronged neck collars, and whippings where salt water was used to clear infection, with the result of pain so excruciating a slave recollecting it wrote "the flesh crawls upon my bones" (TL 1, pp 49-58)

Eli Whitney patented his cotton gin in 1793. Prior to that, slaves were harvesting cotton, pulling the seed from the boll, and packing by hand for market at a rate of 100 bales a week. The gin did the hard work of separating the boll, enabling bales of cotton at a rate of over 1000 a week, often more. The result was the number of annual cotton harvests increased to three, which saw a concurrent rise in profits made by plantation owners; the number of slaves needed for the fields and other tasks increased as well, climbing from 300,000 in 1790 to over three million by 1860.

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

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

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

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

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

===Bleeding Kansas===
[[Image:Brooks1.jpg|thumb|150px|right|J.L. Magee's cartoon of Preston Brooks attacking Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, May 24, 1856.]]
The Border Ruffians also stirred up violence between themselves and the Free-Staters, which became known as ''[[Bleeding Kansas]]'', beginning with the burning of a hotel and printing press in [[Lawrence, Kansas|Lawrence]] on May 21, 1856. Several days later an anti-slavery religious fanatic named [[John Brown]] and a few followers retaliated against five pro-slavery men, hacking them to death with [[broadsword]]s. By August thousands of men had formed into pro-slavery armies and marched into Kansas, expecting to force the territory to accept slavery. That same month a small, pitched battle occurred near the city of [[Osawatomie]]; 300 pro-slavery soldiers under the command of John W. Reid fought against Brown and 40 men. Brown lost the battle and Osawatomie was looted and burned. A fragile peace led by a new territorial governor would commence only when Brown and his men left the territory. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===1860 Presidential campaign===
[[Image:Electionlincoln.JPG|thumb|250px|right|Results of the 1860 Presidential Election. Due to the splitting of the country on the slavery issue, Lincoln won only 40% of the popular vote.]]
In April, 1860, the Democratic Party held its convention in Charleston, South Carolina, and the first platform placed for a vote is pro-slavery. When it is rejected in the course of voting, delegates from eight states in the South walk out; the remaining delegates are forced to adjourn when they cannot agree on a candidate to represent their party in the White House. (Bowman, pg. 40)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Next articles==
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1861 Continue to the events of the Civil War in 1861]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1862 1862]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1863 1863]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1864 1864]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1865_and_Aftermath 1865 and Aftermath]

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 15 (''Gettysburg''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1947)
*Bowman, John S. (editor), ''The Civil War Almanac'' World Almanac Publications, New York (1985)

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

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

====Emergence of Lincoln====
*[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's "House Divided" speech]
====1860 Presidential Campaign====
*[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]
====Secession====
*[http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/march/jefferson-davis-inauguration-speech.htm Jefferson Davis Inaugural speech, as reported in Harper's Weekly]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address1.html text of Licoln's first inaugural speech]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address2.html Lincoln's second inaugural speech]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm Constitution of the Confederate States]

[[Category:United States History]]

[[Category:Featured article]]

American Civil War

2007-04-11T05:12:32Z

M: /* Dred Scott decision */ Undoing vandalism.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|The Civil War
1861 - 1865
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State:
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretaries of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretaries of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''American Civil War''' was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. The bloodiest war ever fought on American soil, it involved casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, roughly three percent of the country's total population.

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

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

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

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

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

Southern life was set by a landed gentry, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, kindness towards those of inferior status, a code of honor among equals, and a gallantry towards women.

The money made from cotton was spent on goods manufactured in the North, as well as imports from Europe. They had a taste for well-bred horses, quality firearms, foxhounds, and the belles from fine Southern families. And they also studied assiduously the arts of war, often spending large sums of money to send themselves or their sons to military schools. One Mississippi planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South "did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms." (TL 1, pg 12)

But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves, versus more than 21 million in the North. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing [[rolled iron]], one which produced [[gunpowder]], and none capable of producing [[firearms]]; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in Massachusetts alone. More than 70% of all [[railroad]] mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.

===[[Slavery]]===
[[Image:Whippedslave.JPG|thumb|150px|right|Unknown slave prior to 1860, showing the scars of one, or more, brutal whippings.]]
Before the Civil War, the individual states, particularly in the South, shared a belief that each state was sovereign. Sovereignty included jurisdiction over, and the handling of, each state's affairs, which invariably included their own public and private institutions.

Yet the "peculiar institution" cited more often than anything else in defending states' rights was the Southern institution of slavery. Africans had been present as slaves since just after the first English colonists arrived early in the 17th century; over the years the South began to see it less as an evil and more of a necessity; so ingrained into the fabric had slavery become that Vice President John C. Calhoun was to say in 1838:
:''"many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political evil. That folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world."'' (TL 1, pg 40)

The slaves for the most part were treated brutally. Born in bondage, a slave usually began his first work in the fields at the age of twelve. They would work in the fields from the light of day until, in the words of a Louisiana slave, "until it is too dark to see, and when the moon is full, they often labor until the middle of the night" (TL, pg 48). They were fed and clothed poorly, usually in rags; shoes were uncommon. Disease was rampant; four out of 100 lived past age 60. And they were required to absolute respect to a white. Punishment for infractions was severe, involving stocks, pronged neck collars, and whippings where salt water was used to clear infection, with the result of pain so excruciating a slave recollecting it wrote "the flesh crawls upon my bones" (TL 1, pp 49-58)

Eli Whitney patented his cotton gin in 1793. Prior to that, slaves were harvesting cotton, pulling the seed from the boll, and packing by hand for market at a rate of 100 bales a week. The gin did the hard work of separating the boll, enabling bales of cotton at a rate of over 1000 a week, often more. The result was the number of annual cotton harvests increased to three, which saw a concurrent rise in profits made by plantation owners; the number of slaves needed for the fields and other tasks increased as well, climbing from 300,000 in 1790 to over three million by 1860.

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

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

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

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

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

===Bleeding Kansas===
[[Image:Brooks1.jpg|thumb|150px|right|J.L. Magee's cartoon of Preston Brooks attacking Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, May 24, 1856.]]
The Border Ruffians also stirred up violence between themselves and the Free-Staters, which became known as ''[[Bleeding Kansas]]'', beginning with the burning of a hotel and printing press in [[Lawrence, Kansas|Lawrence]] on May 21, 1856. Several days later an anti-slavery religious fanatic named [[John Brown]] and a few followers retaliated against five pro-slavery men, hacking them to death with [[broadsword]]s. By August thousands of men had formed into pro-slavery armies and marched into Kansas, expecting to force the territory to accept slavery. That same month a small, pitched battle occurred near the city of [[Osawatomie]]; 300 pro-slavery soldiers under the command of John W. Reid fought against Brown and 40 men. Brown lost the battle and Osawatomie was looted and burned. A fragile peace led by a new territorial governor would commence only when Brown and his men left the territory. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===1860 Presidential campaign===
[[Image:Electionlincoln.JPG|thumb|250px|right|Results of the 1860 Presidential Election. Due to the splitting of the country on the slavery issue, Lincoln won only 40% of the popular vote.]]
In April, 1860, the Democratic Party held its convention in Charleston, South Carolina, and the first platform placed for a vote is pro-slavery. When it is rejected in the course of voting, delegates from eight states in the South walk out; the remaining delegates are forced to adjourn when they cannot agree on a candidate to represent their party in the White House. (Bowman, pg. 40)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Civil War had begun. Although we didn't add anymore to this article, we would just like to conclude it by saying the south won. Niggers are still hanged from trees and we still fuck our sisters. MOONSHINE!

==Next articles==
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1861 Continue to the events of the Civil War in 1861]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1862 1862]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1863 1863]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1864 1864]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1865_and_Aftermath 1865 and Aftermath]

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 15 (''Gettysburg''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1947)
*Bowman, John S. (editor), ''The Civil War Almanac'' World Almanac Publications, New York (1985)

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

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

====Emergence of Lincoln====
*[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's "House Divided" speech]
====1860 Presidential Campaign====
*[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]
====Secession====
*[http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/march/jefferson-davis-inauguration-speech.htm Jefferson Davis Inaugural speech, as reported in Harper's Weekly]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address1.html text of Licoln's first inaugural speech]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address2.html Lincoln's second inaugural speech]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm Constitution of the Confederate States]

[[Category:United States History]]

[[Category:Featured article]]

American Civil War

2007-04-11T05:11:48Z

M: /* Slavery */ undoing vandalism.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|The Civil War
1861 - 1865
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State:
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretaries of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretaries of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''American Civil War''' was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. The bloodiest war ever fought on American soil, it involved casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, roughly three percent of the country's total population.

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

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

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

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

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

Southern life was set by a landed gentry, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, kindness towards those of inferior status, a code of honor among equals, and a gallantry towards women.

The money made from cotton was spent on goods manufactured in the North, as well as imports from Europe. They had a taste for well-bred horses, quality firearms, foxhounds, and the belles from fine Southern families. And they also studied assiduously the arts of war, often spending large sums of money to send themselves or their sons to military schools. One Mississippi planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South "did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms." (TL 1, pg 12)

But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves, versus more than 21 million in the North. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing [[rolled iron]], one which produced [[gunpowder]], and none capable of producing [[firearms]]; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in Massachusetts alone. More than 70% of all [[railroad]] mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.

===[[Slavery]]===
[[Image:Whippedslave.JPG|thumb|150px|right|Unknown slave prior to 1860, showing the scars of one, or more, brutal whippings.]]
Before the Civil War, the individual states, particularly in the South, shared a belief that each state was sovereign. Sovereignty included jurisdiction over, and the handling of, each state's affairs, which invariably included their own public and private institutions.

Yet the "peculiar institution" cited more often than anything else in defending states' rights was the Southern institution of slavery. Africans had been present as slaves since just after the first English colonists arrived early in the 17th century; over the years the South began to see it less as an evil and more of a necessity; so ingrained into the fabric had slavery become that Vice President John C. Calhoun was to say in 1838:
:''"many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political evil. That folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world."'' (TL 1, pg 40)

The slaves for the most part were treated brutally. Born in bondage, a slave usually began his first work in the fields at the age of twelve. They would work in the fields from the light of day until, in the words of a Louisiana slave, "until it is too dark to see, and when the moon is full, they often labor until the middle of the night" (TL, pg 48). They were fed and clothed poorly, usually in rags; shoes were uncommon. Disease was rampant; four out of 100 lived past age 60. And they were required to absolute respect to a white. Punishment for infractions was severe, involving stocks, pronged neck collars, and whippings where salt water was used to clear infection, with the result of pain so excruciating a slave recollecting it wrote "the flesh crawls upon my bones" (TL 1, pp 49-58)

Eli Whitney patented his cotton gin in 1793. Prior to that, slaves were harvesting cotton, pulling the seed from the boll, and packing by hand for market at a rate of 100 bales a week. The gin did the hard work of separating the boll, enabling bales of cotton at a rate of over 1000 a week, often more. The result was the number of annual cotton harvests increased to three, which saw a concurrent rise in profits made by plantation owners; the number of slaves needed for the fields and other tasks increased as well, climbing from 300,000 in 1790 to over three million by 1860.

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

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

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

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

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

===Bleeding Kansas===
[[Image:Brooks1.jpg|thumb|150px|right|J.L. Magee's cartoon of Preston Brooks attacking Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, May 24, 1856.]]
The Border Ruffians also stirred up violence between themselves and the Free-Staters, which became known as ''[[Bleeding Kansas]]'', beginning with the burning of a hotel and printing press in [[Lawrence, Kansas|Lawrence]] on May 21, 1856. Several days later an anti-slavery religious fanatic named [[John Brown]] and a few followers retaliated against five pro-slavery men, hacking them to death with [[broadsword]]s. By August thousands of men had formed into pro-slavery armies and marched into Kansas, expecting to force the territory to accept slavery. That same month a small, pitched battle occurred near the city of [[Osawatomie]]; 300 pro-slavery soldiers under the command of John W. Reid fought against Brown and 40 men. Brown lost the battle and Osawatomie was looted and burned. A fragile peace led by a new territorial governor would commence only when Brown and his men left the territory. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===1860 Presidential campaign===
[[Image:Electionlincoln.JPG|thumb|250px|right|Results of the 1860 Presidential Election. Due to the splitting of the country on the slavery issue, Lincoln won only 40% of the popular vote.]]
In April, 1860, the Democratic Party held its convention in Charleston, South Carolina, and the first platform placed for a vote is pro-slavery. When it is rejected in the course of voting, delegates from eight states in the South walk out; the remaining delegates are forced to adjourn when they cannot agree on a candidate to represent their party in the White House. (Bowman, pg. 40)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Civil War had begun. Although we didn't add anymore to this article, we would just like to conclude it by saying the south won. Niggers are still hanged from trees and we still fuck our sisters. MOONSHINE!

==Next articles==
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1861 Continue to the events of the Civil War in 1861]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1862 1862]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1863 1863]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1864 1864]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1865_and_Aftermath 1865 and Aftermath]

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 15 (''Gettysburg''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1947)
*Bowman, John S. (editor), ''The Civil War Almanac'' World Almanac Publications, New York (1985)

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

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

====Emergence of Lincoln====
*[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's "House Divided" speech]
====1860 Presidential Campaign====
*[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]
====Secession====
*[http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/march/jefferson-davis-inauguration-speech.htm Jefferson Davis Inaugural speech, as reported in Harper's Weekly]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address1.html text of Licoln's first inaugural speech]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address2.html Lincoln's second inaugural speech]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm Constitution of the Confederate States]

[[Category:United States History]]

[[Category:Featured article]]

American Civil War

2007-04-11T05:10:26Z

M: Edited for accuracy; WWII had far, far more than a million casualties.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|The Civil War
1861 - 1865
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State:
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretaries of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretaries of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''American Civil War''' was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. The bloodiest war ever fought on American soil, it involved casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, roughly three percent of the country's total population.

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

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

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

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

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

Southern life was set by a landed gentry, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, kindness towards those of inferior status, a code of honor among equals, and a gallantry towards women.

The money made from cotton was spent on goods manufactured in the North, as well as imports from Europe. They had a taste for well-bred horses, quality firearms, foxhounds, and the belles from fine Southern families. And they also studied assiduously the arts of war, often spending large sums of money to send themselves or their sons to military schools. One Mississippi planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South "did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms." (TL 1, pg 12)

But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves, versus more than 21 million in the North. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing [[rolled iron]], one which produced [[gunpowder]], and none capable of producing [[firearms]]; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in Massachusetts alone. More than 70% of all [[railroad]] mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.

===[[Slavery]]===
[[Image:Whippedslave.JPG|thumb|150px|right|Unknown slave prior to 1860, showing the scars of one, or more, brutal whippings.]]
Before the Civil War, the individual states, particularly in the South, shared a belief that each state was sovereign. Sovereignty included jurisdiction over, and the handling of, each state's affairs, which invariably included their own public and private institutions.

Yet the "peculiar institution" cited more often than anything else in defending states' rights was the Southern institution of slavery. Niggers have been present as slaves just after the first English colonists arrived early in the 17th century; over the years the South began to see it less as an evil and more of a necessity; so ingrained into the fabric had slavery become that Vice President John C. Calhoun was to say in 1838:
:''"many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political evil. That folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world."'' (TL 1, pg 40)

The slaves for the most part were treated brutally. Born in bondage, a slave usually began his first work in the fields at the age of twelve. They would work in the fields from the light of day until, in the words of a Louisiana slave, "until it is too dark to see, and when the moon is full, they often labor until the middle of the night" (TL, pg 48). They were fed and clothed poorly, usually in rags; shoes were uncommon. Disease was rampant; four out of 100 lived past age 60. And they were required to absolute respect to a white. Punishment for infractions was severe, involving stocks, pronged neck collars, and whippings where salt water was used to clear infection, with the result of pain so excruciating a slave recollecting it wrote "the flesh crawls upon my bones" (TL 1, pp 49-58)

Eli Whitney patented his cotton gin in 1793. Prior to that, slaves were harvesting cotton, pulling the seed from the boll, and packing by hand for market at a rate of 100 bales a week. The gin did the hard work of separating the boll, enabling bales of cotton at a rate of over 1000 a week, often more. The result was the number of annual cotton harvests increased to three, which saw a concurrent rise in profits made by plantation owners; the number of slaves needed for the fields and other tasks increased as well, climbing from 300,000 in 1790 to over three million by 1860.

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

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

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

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

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

===Bleeding Kansas===
[[Image:Brooks1.jpg|thumb|150px|right|J.L. Magee's cartoon of Preston Brooks attacking Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, May 24, 1856.]]
The Border Ruffians also stirred up violence between themselves and the Free-Staters, which became known as ''[[Bleeding Kansas]]'', beginning with the burning of a hotel and printing press in [[Lawrence, Kansas|Lawrence]] on May 21, 1856. Several days later an anti-slavery religious fanatic named [[John Brown]] and a few followers retaliated against five pro-slavery men, hacking them to death with [[broadsword]]s. By August thousands of men had formed into pro-slavery armies and marched into Kansas, expecting to force the territory to accept slavery. That same month a small, pitched battle occurred near the city of [[Osawatomie]]; 300 pro-slavery soldiers under the command of John W. Reid fought against Brown and 40 men. Brown lost the battle and Osawatomie was looted and burned. A fragile peace led by a new territorial governor would commence only when Brown and his men left the territory. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===1860 Presidential campaign===
[[Image:Electionlincoln.JPG|thumb|250px|right|Results of the 1860 Presidential Election. Due to the splitting of the country on the slavery issue, Lincoln won only 40% of the popular vote.]]
In April, 1860, the Democratic Party held its convention in Charleston, South Carolina, and the first platform placed for a vote is pro-slavery. When it is rejected in the course of voting, delegates from eight states in the South walk out; the remaining delegates are forced to adjourn when they cannot agree on a candidate to represent their party in the White House. (Bowman, pg. 40)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Civil War had begun. Although we didn't add anymore to this article, we would just like to conclude it by saying the south won. Niggers are still hanged from trees and we still fuck our sisters. MOONSHINE!

==Next articles==
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1861 Continue to the events of the Civil War in 1861]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1862 1862]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1863 1863]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1864 1864]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Civil_War:_1865_and_Aftermath 1865 and Aftermath]

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 15 (''Gettysburg''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1947)
*Bowman, John S. (editor), ''The Civil War Almanac'' World Almanac Publications, New York (1985)

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

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

====Emergence of Lincoln====
*[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's "House Divided" speech]
====1860 Presidential Campaign====
*[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]
====Secession====
*[http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/march/jefferson-davis-inauguration-speech.htm Jefferson Davis Inaugural speech, as reported in Harper's Weekly]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address1.html text of Licoln's first inaugural speech]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address2.html Lincoln's second inaugural speech]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm Constitution of the Confederate States]

[[Category:United States History]]

[[Category:Featured article]]