Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay: Gingrich Administration

2012-07-08T00:49:28Z

MatthewQ:

{{merge|Predicting ObamaCare Outcome}}

The '''Gingrich Administration''' would have been the expected leadership of the [[Executive Branch]] of the [[United States]] government from 2013 to 2017,had [[Newt Gingrich]] been able to secure the Republican nomination and win the [[Presidential Election 2012]].

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Position
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Actual Appointment
|-
|[[President]]
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|
|-
|[[Vice President]]
|[[Rick Perry]]
|
|-
|[[Secretary of State]]
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Defense]]
|
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|
|-
|[[Attorney General]]
|Possibly [[John Yoo]]
|
|-
|[[White House Press Secretary]]
|a [[Fox News Channel]] analyst
|
|-
|Secretary of Veterans Affairs
|[http://independenceave.org/congress/member/nm/01 Heather Wilson]
|
|}
==Republicans who would not have appeared in a Gingrich Administration==
*[[Mitt Romney]] - despite the potential for being able to woo [[RINO]]s and others with whom Romney is popular, Romney's terribly negative campaign against Gingrich has effectively shut him out
*[[Chris Christie]] - a major supporter of Romney

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category: Essays]]

Predicting ObamaCare Outcome

2012-07-08T00:48:40Z

MatthewQ:

{{merge|Essay: Gingrich Administration}}

What is the best prediction of the outcome in the [[ObamaCare]] decision expected to be issued Thursday, June 27, 2012? '''''85% of experts predict that ObamaCare will be upheld - can so many experts be so wrong?'''''

'''Yes, the experts are wrong, and here's why''':

*ObamaCare does violate the limits in the [[Commerce Clause]], and it is difficult to overcome that [[logic]]
*while 85% of experts think ObamaCare will be upheld, probably 90% are unwilling to criticize [[Obama]], so when adjusted for bias it indicates disbelief that ObamaCare will be upheld
*So-called experts rarely live up to the expertise provided by the [[Best of the Public]], who tend to think the individual mandate will be overturned.
*[[Barack Obama]]'s [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/3/obamas-faulty-grasp-of-our-constitution/ recent rudeness] to the Supreme Court may lead some of the more [[liberal]] justices, such as [[Anthony Kennedy]], to turn towards logic and truth over politics.
*95% of those same experts deny that logic/[[conservatism]] advances over time for the same reason technology does
*ObamaCare could have been upheld more easily and quickly than to invalidate it
*virtually all of the "experts" missed the boat, and continue to miss the boat, on [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. Wrong about that, why would anyone expect them to be right about anything else?
*the [[liberal]] [[White House]] inappropriately used [[ObamaCare]] to interfere with religious liberty, soon after the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld by a 9-0 vote strong rights of religious organizations to fire workers for religious reasons

Sumer

2012-07-08T00:47:51Z

MatthewQ: Undo revision 992285 by MatthewQ (talk)

{{merge|Sumerians}}

'''Sumer''' was the land of [[Sumerians]] in southern [[Mesopotamia]], in present-day [[Iraq]]. [[Ur]] was the most important city. The Sumerians' greatest invention was [[cuneiform]] writing. They also invented the first codes of law, the first [[city-states]], the seed plow, the sailboat, and the potter’s wheel.

[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Ancient History]]

Sumer

2012-07-08T00:47:17Z

MatthewQ:

{{merge|Essay: Gingrich Administration}}

'''Sumer''' was the land of [[Sumerians]] in southern [[Mesopotamia]], in present-day [[Iraq]]. [[Ur]] was the most important city. The Sumerians' greatest invention was [[cuneiform]] writing. They also invented the first codes of law, the first [[city-states]], the seed plow, the sailboat, and the potter’s wheel.

[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Ancient History]]

Talk:Predicting ObamaCare Outcome

2012-07-01T19:03:04Z

MatthewQ:

== One question ==

Which key part(s) of the bill do you predict will be struck down and which, if any, will be upheld? As I understand (from a foreign perspective) there are several elements to consider, so which are the critical ones on which your prediction is based?

Oh well, never mind

Something to learn from this: making predictions is stupid. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:18, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== So the experts were right? ==

Maybe we shouldn't completely dismiss the opinion of people with training and experience? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:57, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
: Now I see in main page predictions that nations that are atheistic and accept same sex marriage will fare badly in the Olympics. Absolutely nothing learned from this. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::The experts were wrong - they predicted the law would be upheld under the [[Commerce Clause]], and ''Conservapedia'' was right in expecting otherwise. But Conservapedia does not claim to be right in every one of its predictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:38, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=990089 "85% of experts predict ObamaCare will be fully upheld Thursday. Conservapedia predicts ObamaCare's key part will be declared unconstitutional"] Nothing in that quote or link about the [[Commerce Clause]]. Is it really that hard for you to just admit that you were wrong? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:03, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Predicting ObamaCare Outcome

2012-07-01T18:20:37Z

MatthewQ: /* So the experts were right? */ Seriously, still making predictions?

Talk:Predicting ObamaCare Outcome

2012-07-01T05:57:41Z

MatthewQ: /* So the experts were right? */ new section

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-25T20:40:22Z

MatthewQ:

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-25T18:12:31Z

MatthewQ:

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Water into Wine

2012-06-17T06:18:27Z

MatthewQ:

Isn't it likely that the liquid was observed visually before it was tasted? --[[User:BaileyJ|BaileyJ]] 21:53, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

:Doubtful that a visual inspection was done - drinking cups were dark then, rather than the glass that is popular today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

:: Yeah, it's not like the top of the cup is clear and they could have viewed the liquid from above.... --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:18, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-14T03:16:01Z

MatthewQ: /* My answers to Randall7 */

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Now it's back to being a closed system? Did "pretty close" just disappear? Answer the question about the logs. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:45, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::The logs are more complex; in the act of burning them, matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one, and energy is given off. Are you going to elaborate on how this relates to evolution as Randall asked? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 08:28, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::That is correct. Now explain why the 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Those are your words, Randall7, and I expect you to answer it...not CWest. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::The two statements that make up the foundation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the Kelvin-Planck statement and the Clausius statement - both describe systems that exchange heat and/or work with their surroundings, but not mass. But as I said before, my concern is less about the closed system argument and more about the abuse of the concept of "order" to claim that the Second Law disproves evolution. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Several more questions, Mr. Randal7, because now you're drifting away from the "closed" system here.
:1. Is iron more complex than rust? And when iron does rust, does it constitute an improvement, or a breakdown?
:2. What happens to boiling water when you turn off the stove? Does it stay the same, or does it get cooler?
:3. Is CWest's statement above correct, in that ''"matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one"''? Does that statement apply only to the fireplace? Could it also apply to a freshly-cleaned living room, just prior to adding three eight-year-old spoiled brats with pop guns and a baby sitter unable to control the outcome? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

::I feel like this discussion is becoming less productive and more of a waste of time, but I'll answer the questions because I want to see how you relate them to the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproving evolution. (I so far have failed to see the connection.)
::#Iron is generally less complex than rust. (Although "complex" is not a very precise term.) Iron is a single element, whereas rust can be a number of iron oxide or iron hydroxide compounds. Iron is usually much more homogeneous than rust. When iron rusts it is a chemical and thermodynamic improvement - it would not happen spontaneously if it were not energetically favorable. In practical terms, rusting is not an improvement because pure iron is more useful for structural or electrical applications, but pure iron does not usually stay pure for long because of its propensity to oxidate. This is why iron alloys are much more common.
::#When the stove is turned off, boiling water cools as heat is transferred from the water to its cooler surroundings. Entropy is generated from this heat transfer.
::#In the burning log example, it is true that "matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one," and there are plenty of other examples where this statement is true. There are also many instances where matter goes from a disordered state to a more ordered one, such as water freezing or magnetization. But in theses cases of matter becoming more ordered, net entropy of the matter and its surroundings will still never decrease. The statement could also apply to a room of spoiled brats, but in this case the term "order" is no longer being used in a thermodynamic or chemical sense.
::--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 15:27, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

===My answers to Randall7===
With regards to the iron, you are wrong. Rust is a breakdown; it is a disintegration of the iron itself. The rust can be stopped; the iron can be prevented from rusting further, but rust in and of itself can never be restored into iron. It goes one-way only. Likewise the water on the stove; take away the heat which makes the water boil, and the water temperature will drop to the lowest level possible, which one can call "room temperature". Likewise the fireplace logs, likewise the living room. One-way only. Complex to simple, order to disorder. It never, ever happens in reverse.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is the same way. You can restrict the 2nd Law to heating and/or energy concepts all you want, but the very core of this law is the same thing cited above: order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple. The 2nd Law may be about heat, but turn off the fire and what do you get? Water cooling down, heat cooling and dissipating, complex to simple, order to disorder. The fireplace scene has the heat, but the logs always end up as ashes. The ashes ''never'' turn back into logs.

And the final answer to the question "what does this have to do with evolution?". It was evolutionists who stated we should ''accept'' their scenario as to how life came to be: ''simple'' organisms ''evolved'' into more and more ''complex'' ones over time. ''Simple'' to ''complex''; ''disorder'' to ''order''. When making scientific investigations the very first step of the [[scientific method]] that must be followed is ''observation''; a scientist has to ''observe'' what is going on, and every single minute of every day scientists and layman alike are observing the 2nd Law in action; no one can get away from it. ''Observation'' proves complex always goes to simple; ''observation'' proves order always goes to disorder. ''Observation'', scientific or not, ''confirms'' the validity of the 2nd Law. The examples I posted above - the fireplace, the iron, the living room, the stove top - are perfect examples of the 2nd Law in action, closed system or not. It's impossible to go into reverse.

That is why we're going to post the impossibility of evolution on this website, ''vis-a-vis'' the 2nd Law. Case closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:You make a good point that irreversibility is an unavoidable consequence of the Second Law. There is no such thing as a truly reversible process and all processes generate entropy. But your claim that "order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple" is absurd. More ordered/"complex" materials can be formed through [[work]]. ("Simple" and "complex" do not have rigorous thermodynamic definitions, by the way.) Otherwise every single ordered object would have to have existed existed exactly as it is since the beginning of time, or have existed in a larger or more ordered form. Organisms gain energy - the capacity do do work - by eating, respiring, photosynthesizing, or otherwise absorbing energy from their surroundings. This allows them to become more ordered or more "complex," but this is not in violation of the the Second Law because during their processes of converting energy and exerting work, net entropy is generated. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Randall7, these organisms do take in food, use it as energy, and continue on with their lives, but their status as organisms remains unchanged until they ''cease the work''; when that happens they wither away and die; they decompose, they turn to dust. Complex to simple, order to disorder. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:03, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I suppose that is true, but you did not refute anything I just said. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:11, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::If you can sit there and "suppose it is true", then I did refute everything you just said. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::You seem to focus very much on the "withering away" part of the cycle. What about the observations of growing crystals, growing plants, growing children? Those processes do go from simple to complex - whether the complex states can exist forever (they can't) is not relevant, what's important is that these processes occur naturally. And they're not in contradiction to the second law either; e.g. in the case of crystal growth the evaporating water occupies a larger volume afterwards and hence has increased entropy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::Frederick, "growing" crystals do not constitute life. Grown humans and plants are still the same species; I don't see children take on a totally different form when growing up into completely-normal adult human beings, and I don't see an acorn grow into anything other than an oak. You don't have a valid argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::Oh, Frederick, don't forget to tell the viewing audience here that your "crystal" things are actually water-soluable; they dissolve in water, and reappear back into crystals when the water evaporates. Nothing to do with entropy, the 2nd Law, or the antics of trolling via China. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

----

:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Order is not really increasing when a crystal grows in a solution, or when water changes its phase and becomes ice. If the crystal or ice is melted again, then one back to where it started. This is no increase in order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, it is clear that your concept of order differs from the thermodynamic concept of order. When water freezes, its entropy decreases and when ice melts, its entropy increases, but during these processes the entropy of the water's surroundings also increase/decrease (such that total net change in entropy is never negative, and in reality is net positive). I would like to hear an explanation of how changes in "order" during evolution relate to the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, are you honestly suggesting there is no change in entropy when water melts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:57, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: That's a question about semantics - the answer depends entirely on how one decides to define "entropy".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:01, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Entropy has a very clear definition which you can look up in any textbook on thermodynamics. According to that definition, the entropy changes (increases) when water/ice melts. And of course a clear definition is prerequisite to being able to formulate and understand the second law properly in the first place. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm aware of two definitions of entropy in the context of thermodynamics. The statistical entropy, S, of a system is defined as <math>S = -k_{B}\sum_{j}P_{j}\log\left(P_{j}\right)</math> where <math>k_{B}</math> is Boltzmann's constant and <math>P_j</math> is the probability of the system to be in the ''i''th microstate (this reduces to <math>S = k_{B} \log \Omega</math> where <math>\Omega</math> when all the microstates are equiprobable and <math>\Omega</math> is the number of microstates). Alternatively, one has the thermodynamic definition of entropy <math>dS = \frac{\delta Q}{T} \!</math> where <math>\delta Q</math> in an infinitesimal change in heat and <math>T</math> is the temperature of the system. However, Boltzmann showed this was equivalent to the statistical entropy, so these two definitions are really just two different descriptions of the same thing. In any case, the second law of thermodynamics is talking about the statistical/thermodynamic entropy. It clearly changes when ice melts. If you have your own definition of entropy Mr. Schlafly that's fine, although it's confusing to use a word that already has a clear meaning and then use your particular definition in the talk page of the second law of thermodynamics. However, people here are using 'entropy' as its understood by actual scientists. What is your definition? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::: I don't have any reason to doubt your formulas for entropy, and thanks for posting them. But for the purposes of the Second Law the dictionary definition for entropy works fine: a measure of disorder in a system. It's always increasing unless there is some kind of intelligent intervention, like [[God]] creating the world. Perhaps [[faith]] can operate to reduce entropy. Otherwise, without intervention or faith, disorder is always increasing, and the Second Law is an expressing of that logical truth. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible, and it is isn't.

:::::::::: Considering we're talking about physics the definition used by physicists should take precedent. But fine, often "a measure of disorder in a system" is used to define entropy for the layman. However, under this definition the entropy ''still'' increases when ice melts since the structure becomes less ordered. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:15, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-14T03:15:31Z

MatthewQ: /* My answers to Randall7 */

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Now it's back to being a closed system? Did "pretty close" just disappear? Answer the question about the logs. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:45, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::The logs are more complex; in the act of burning them, matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one, and energy is given off. Are you going to elaborate on how this relates to evolution as Randall asked? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 08:28, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::That is correct. Now explain why the 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Those are your words, Randall7, and I expect you to answer it...not CWest. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::The two statements that make up the foundation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the Kelvin-Planck statement and the Clausius statement - both describe systems that exchange heat and/or work with their surroundings, but not mass. But as I said before, my concern is less about the closed system argument and more about the abuse of the concept of "order" to claim that the Second Law disproves evolution. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Several more questions, Mr. Randal7, because now you're drifting away from the "closed" system here.
:1. Is iron more complex than rust? And when iron does rust, does it constitute an improvement, or a breakdown?
:2. What happens to boiling water when you turn off the stove? Does it stay the same, or does it get cooler?
:3. Is CWest's statement above correct, in that ''"matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one"''? Does that statement apply only to the fireplace? Could it also apply to a freshly-cleaned living room, just prior to adding three eight-year-old spoiled brats with pop guns and a baby sitter unable to control the outcome? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

::I feel like this discussion is becoming less productive and more of a waste of time, but I'll answer the questions because I want to see how you relate them to the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproving evolution. (I so far have failed to see the connection.)
::#Iron is generally less complex than rust. (Although "complex" is not a very precise term.) Iron is a single element, whereas rust can be a number of iron oxide or iron hydroxide compounds. Iron is usually much more homogeneous than rust. When iron rusts it is a chemical and thermodynamic improvement - it would not happen spontaneously if it were not energetically favorable. In practical terms, rusting is not an improvement because pure iron is more useful for structural or electrical applications, but pure iron does not usually stay pure for long because of its propensity to oxidate. This is why iron alloys are much more common.
::#When the stove is turned off, boiling water cools as heat is transferred from the water to its cooler surroundings. Entropy is generated from this heat transfer.
::#In the burning log example, it is true that "matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one," and there are plenty of other examples where this statement is true. There are also many instances where matter goes from a disordered state to a more ordered one, such as water freezing or magnetization. But in theses cases of matter becoming more ordered, net entropy of the matter and its surroundings will still never decrease. The statement could also apply to a room of spoiled brats, but in this case the term "order" is no longer being used in a thermodynamic or chemical sense.
::--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 15:27, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

===My answers to Randall7===
With regards to the iron, you are wrong. Rust is a breakdown; it is a disintegration of the iron itself. The rust can be stopped; the iron can be prevented from rusting further, but rust in and of itself can never be restored into iron. It goes one-way only. Likewise the water on the stove; take away the heat which makes the water boil, and the water temperature will drop to the lowest level possible, which one can call "room temperature". Likewise the fireplace logs, likewise the living room. One-way only. Complex to simple, order to disorder. It never, ever happens in reverse.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is the same way. You can restrict the 2nd Law to heating and/or energy concepts all you want, but the very core of this law is the same thing cited above: order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple. The 2nd Law may be about heat, but turn off the fire and what do you get? Water cooling down, heat cooling and dissipating, complex to simple, order to disorder. The fireplace scene has the heat, but the logs always end up as ashes. The ashes ''never'' turn back into logs.

And the final answer to the question "what does this have to do with evolution?". It was evolutionists who stated we should ''accept'' their scenario as to how life came to be: ''simple'' organisms ''evolved'' into more and more ''complex'' ones over time. ''Simple'' to ''complex''; ''disorder'' to ''order''. When making scientific investigations the very first step of the [[scientific method]] that must be followed is ''observation''; a scientist has to ''observe'' what is going on, and every single minute of every day scientists and layman alike are observing the 2nd Law in action; no one can get away from it. ''Observation'' proves complex always goes to simple; ''observation'' proves order always goes to disorder. ''Observation'', scientific or not, ''confirms'' the validity of the 2nd Law. The examples I posted above - the fireplace, the iron, the living room, the stove top - are perfect examples of the 2nd Law in action, closed system or not. It's impossible to go into reverse.

That is why we're going to post the impossibility of evolution on this website, ''vis-a-vis'' the 2nd Law. Case closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:You make a good point that irreversibility is an unavoidable consequence of the Second Law. There is no such thing as a truly reversible process and all processes generate entropy. But your claim that "order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple" is absurd. More ordered/"complex" materials can be formed through [[work]]. ("Simple" and "complex" do not have rigorous thermodynamic definitions, by the way.) Otherwise every single ordered object would have to have existed existed exactly as it is since the beginning of time, or have existed in a larger or more ordered form. Organisms gain energy - the capacity do do work - by eating, respiring, photosynthesizing, or otherwise absorbing energy from their surroundings. This allows them to become more ordered or more "complex," but this is not in violation of the the Second Law because during their processes of converting energy and exerting work, net entropy is generated. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Randall7, these organisms do take in food, use it as energy, and continue on with their lives, but their status as organisms remains unchanged until they ''cease the work''; when that happens they wither away and die; they decompose, they turn to dust. Complex to simple, order to disorder. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:03, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I suppose that is true, but you did not refute anything I just said. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:11, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::If you can sit there and "suppose it is true", then I did refute everything you just said. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::You seem to focus very much on the "withering away" part of the cycle. What about the observations of growing crystals, growing plants, growing children? Those processes do go from simple to complex - whether the complex states can exist forever (they can't) is not relevant, what's important is that these processes occur naturally. And they're not in contradiction to the second law either; e.g. in the case of crystal growth the evaporating water occupies a larger volume afterwards and hence has increased entropy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::Frederick, "growing" crystals do not constitute life. Grown humans and plants are still the same species; I don't see children take on a totally different form when growing up into completely-normal adult human beings, and I don't see an acorn grow into anything other than an oak. You don't have a valid argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::Oh, Frederick, don't forget to tell the viewing audience here that your "crystal" things are actually water-soluable; they dissolve in water, and reappear back into crystals when the water evaporates. Nothing to do with entropy, the 2nd Law, or the antics of trolling via China. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

----

:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Order is not really increasing when a crystal grows in a solution, or when water changes its phase and becomes ice. If the crystal or ice is melted again, then one back to where it started. This is no increase in order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, it is clear that your concept of order differs from the thermodynamic concept of order. When water freezes, its entropy decreases and when ice melts, its entropy increases, but during these processes the entropy of the water's surroundings also increase/decrease (such that total net change in entropy is never negative, and in reality is net positive). I would like to hear an explanation of how changes in "order" during evolution relate to the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, are you honestly suggesting there is no change in entropy when water melts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:57, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: That's a question about semantics - the answer depends entirely on how one decides to define "entropy".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:01, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Entropy has a very clear definition which you can look up in any textbook on thermodynamics. According to that definition, the entropy changes (increases) when water/ice melts. And of course a clear definition is prerequisite to being able to formulate and understand the second law properly in the first place. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm aware of two definitions of entropy in the context of thermodynamics. The statistical entropy, S, of a system is defined as <math>S = -k_{B}\sum_{j}P_{j}\log\left(P_{j}\right)</math> where <math>k_{B}</math> is Boltzmann's constant and <math>P_j</math> is the probability of the system to be in the ''i''th microstate (this reduces to <math>S = k_{B} \log \Omega</math> where <math>\Omega</math> when all the microstates are equiprobable and <math>\Omega</math> is the number of microstates). Alternatively, one has the thermodynamic definition of entropy <math>dS = \frac{\delta Q}{T} \!</math> where <math>\delta Q</math> in an infinitesimal change in heat and <math>T</math> is the temperature of the system. However, Boltzmann showed this was equivalent to the statistical entropy, so these two definitions are really just two different descriptions of the same thing. In any case, the second law of thermodynamics is talking about the statistical/thermodynamic entropy. It clearly changes when ice melts. If you have your own definition of entropy Mr. Schlafly that's fine, although it's confusing to use a word that already has a clear meaning and then use your particular definition in the talk page of the second law of thermodynamics. However, people here are using 'entropy' as its understood by actual scientists. What is your definition? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::: I don't have any reason to doubt your formulas for entropy, and thanks for posting them. But for the purposes of the Second Law the dictionary definition for entropy works fine: a measure of disorder in a system. It's always increasing unless there is some kind of intelligent intervention, like [[God]] creating the world. Perhaps [[faith]] can operate to reduce entropy. Otherwise, without intervention or faith, disorder is always increasing, and the Second Law is an expressing of that logical truth. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible, and it is isn't.

:::::::::: Considering we're talking about physics the definition used by physicists should take precedent. But fine, often "a measure of disorder in a system" is used to define entropy for the layman. However, under this definition the entropy ''still'' increases when ice melt since the structure becomes less ordered. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:15, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-14T02:00:56Z

MatthewQ: /* Second Law and Evolution */ Entropy

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Now it's back to being a closed system? Did "pretty close" just disappear? Answer the question about the logs. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:45, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::The logs are more complex; in the act of burning them, matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one, and energy is given off. Are you going to elaborate on how this relates to evolution as Randall asked? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 08:28, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::That is correct. Now explain why the 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Those are your words, Randall7, and I expect you to answer it...not CWest. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::The two statements that make up the foundation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the Kelvin-Planck statement and the Clausius statement - both describe systems that exchange heat and/or work with their surroundings, but not mass. But as I said before, my concern is less about the closed system argument and more about the abuse of the concept of "order" to claim that the Second Law disproves evolution. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Several more questions, Mr. Randal7, because now you're drifting away from the "closed" system here.
:1. Is iron more complex than rust? And when iron does rust, does it constitute an improvement, or a breakdown?
:2. What happens to boiling water when you turn off the stove? Does it stay the same, or does it get cooler?
:3. Is CWest's statement above correct, in that ''"matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one"''? Does that statement apply only to the fireplace? Could it also apply to a freshly-cleaned living room, just prior to adding three eight-year-old spoiled brats with pop guns and a baby sitter unable to control the outcome? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

::I feel like this discussion is becoming less productive and more of a waste of time, but I'll answer the questions because I want to see how you relate them to the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproving evolution. (I so far have failed to see the connection.)
::#Iron is generally less complex than rust. (Although "complex" is not a very precise term.) Iron is a single element, whereas rust can be a number of iron oxide or iron hydroxide compounds. Iron is usually much more homogeneous than rust. When iron rusts it is a chemical and thermodynamic improvement - it would not happen spontaneously if it were not energetically favorable. In practical terms, rusting is not an improvement because pure iron is more useful for structural or electrical applications, but pure iron does not usually stay pure for long because of its propensity to oxidate. This is why iron alloys are much more common.
::#When the stove is turned off, boiling water cools as heat is transferred from the water to its cooler surroundings. Entropy is generated from this heat transfer.
::#In the burning log example, it is true that "matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one," and there are plenty of other examples where this statement is true. There are also many instances where matter goes from a disordered state to a more ordered one, such as water freezing or magnetization. But in theses cases of matter becoming more ordered, net entropy of the matter and its surroundings will still never decrease. The statement could also apply to a room of spoiled brats, but in this case the term "order" is no longer being used in a thermodynamic or chemical sense.
::--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 15:27, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

===My answers to Randall7===
With regards to the iron, you are wrong. Rust is a breakdown; it is a disintegration of the iron itself. The rust can be stopped; the iron can be prevented from rusting further, but rust in and of itself can never be restored into iron. It goes one-way only. Likewise the water on the stove; take away the heat which makes the water boil, and the water temperature will drop to the lowest level possible, which one can call "room temperature". Likewise the fireplace logs, likewise the living room. One-way only. Complex to simple, order to disorder. It never, ever happens in reverse.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is the same way. You can restrict the 2nd Law to heating and/or energy concepts all you want, but the very core of this law is the same thing cited above: order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple. The 2nd Law may be about heat, but turn off the fire and what do you get? Water cooling down, heat cooling and dissipating, complex to simple, order to disorder. The fireplace scene has the heat, but the logs always end up as ashes. The ashes ''never'' turn back into logs.

And the final answer to the question "what does this have to do with evolution?". It was evolutionists who stated we should ''accept'' their scenario as to how life came to be: ''simple'' organisms ''evolved'' into more and more ''complex'' ones over time. ''Simple'' to ''complex''; ''disorder'' to ''order''. When making scientific investigations the very first step of the [[scientific method]] that must be followed is ''observation''; a scientist has to ''observe'' what is going on, and every single minute of every day scientists and layman alike are observing the 2nd Law in action; no one can get away from it. ''Observation'' proves complex always goes to simple; ''observation'' proves order always goes to disorder. ''Observation'', scientific or not, ''confirms'' the validity of the 2nd Law. The examples I posted above - the fireplace, the iron, the living room, the stove top - are perfect examples of the 2nd Law in action, closed system or not. It's impossible to go into reverse.

That is why we're going to post the impossibility of evolution on this website, ''vis-a-vis'' the 2nd Law. Case closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:You make a good point that irreversibility is an unavoidable consequence of the Second Law. There is no such thing as a truly reversible process and all processes generate entropy. But your claim that "order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple" is absurd. More ordered/"complex" materials can be formed through [[work]]. ("Simple" and "complex" do not have rigorous thermodynamic definitions, by the way.) Otherwise every single ordered object would have to have existed existed exactly as it is since the beginning of time, or have existed in a larger or more ordered form. Organisms gain energy - the capacity do do work - by eating, respiring, photosynthesizing, or otherwise absorbing energy from their surroundings. This allows them to become more ordered or more "complex," but this is not in violation of the the Second Law because during their processes of converting energy and exerting work, net entropy is generated. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Randall7, these organisms do take in food, use it as energy, and continue on with their lives, but their status as organisms remains unchanged until they ''cease the work''; when that happens they wither away and die; they decompose, they turn to dust. Complex to simple, order to disorder. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:03, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I suppose that is true, but you did not refute anything I just said. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:11, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::If you can sit there and "suppose it is true", then I did refute everything you just said. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::You seem to focus very much on the "withering away" part of the cycle. What about the observations of growing crystals, growing plants, growing children? Those processes do go from simple to complex - whether the complex states can exist forever (they can't) is not relevant, what's important is that these processes occur naturally. And they're not in contradiction to the second law either; e.g. in the case of crystal growth the evaporating water occupies a larger volume afterwards and hence has increased entropy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
----

:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Order is not really increasing when a crystal grows in a solution, or when water changes its phase and becomes ice. If the crystal or ice is melted again, then one back to where it started. This is no increase in order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, it is clear that your concept of order differs from the thermodynamic concept of order. When water freezes, its entropy decreases and when ice melts, its entropy increases, but during these processes the entropy of the water's surroundings also increase/decrease (such that total net change in entropy is never negative, and in reality is net positive). I would like to hear an explanation of how changes in "order" during evolution relate to the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, are you honestly suggesting there is no change in entropy when water melts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:57, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: That's a question about semantics - the answer depends entirely on how one decides to define "entropy".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:01, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Entropy has a very clear definition which you can look up in any textbook on thermodynamics. According to that definition, the entropy changes (increases) when water/ice melts. And of course a clear definition is prerequisite to being able to formulate and understand the second law properly in the first place. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm aware of two definitions of entropy in the context of thermodynamics. The statistical entropy, S, of a system is defined as <math>S = -k_{B}\sum_{j}P_{j}\log\left(P_{j}\right)</math> where <math>k_{B}</math> is Boltzmann's constant and <math>P_j</math> is the probability of the system to be in the ''i''th microstate (this reduces to <math>S = k_{B} \log \Omega</math> where <math>\Omega</math> when all the microstates are equiprobable and <math>\Omega</math> is the number of microstates). Alternatively, one has the thermodynamic definition of entropy <math>dS = \frac{\delta Q}{T} \!</math> where <math>\delta Q</math> in an infinitesimal change in heat and <math>T</math> is the temperature of the system. However, Boltzmann showed this was equivalent to the statistical entropy, so these two definitions are really just two different descriptions of the same thing. In any case, the second law of thermodynamics is talking about the statistical/thermodynamic entropy. It clearly changes when ice melts. If you have your own definition of entropy Mr. Schlafly that's fine, although it's confusing to use a word that already has a clear meaning and then use your particular definition in the talk page of the second law of thermodynamics. However, people here are using 'entropy' as its understood by actual scientists. What is your definition? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-10T05:57:34Z

MatthewQ: /* Second Law and Evolution */

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!==

I am getting a little tired of the (pardon the immoderate language) stupid edits in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. As has been stated by a number of people on the Talk:Theory of Evolution page, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. You are just making this site look stupid by stating that it does. I see that the person who committed the muddleheaded reversion has now protected the page. Might I respectfully suggest that the protection be removed and some scholarship prevail. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Now it's back to being a closed system? Did "pretty close" just disappear? Answer the question about the logs. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:45, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::The logs are more complex; in the act of burning them, matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one, and energy is given off. Are you going to elaborate on how this relates to evolution as Randall asked? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 08:28, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::That is correct. Now explain why the 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Those are your words, Randall7, and I expect you to answer it...not CWest. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::The two statements that make up the foundation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the Kelvin-Planck statement and the Clausius statement - both describe systems that exchange heat and/or work with their surroundings, but not mass. But as I said before, my concern is less about the closed system argument and more about the abuse of the concept of "order" to claim that the Second Law disproves evolution. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Order is not really increasing when a crystal grows in a solution, or when water changes its phase and becomes ice. If the crystal or ice is melted again, then one back to where it started. This is no increase in order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, it is clear that your concept of order differs from the thermodynamic concept of order. When water freezes, its entropy decreases and when ice melts, its entropy increases, but during these processes the entropy of the water's surroundings also increase/decrease (such that total net change in entropy is never negative, and in reality is net positive). I would like to hear an explanation of how changes in "order" during evolution relate to the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, are you honestly suggesting there is no change in entropy when water melts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:57, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2011-11-18T00:01:02Z

MatthewQ: /* Out of curiousity */ new section

<big>'''ARCHIVES:'''</big> '''[[User talk:RSchlafly/Archive1|1]]'''

== Clean ==

Enjoy your nice, clean talk page! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:15, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear RSchlafly,

I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other interent websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

'''*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". Thanks. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 15:52, 29 July 2007 (EDT)'''

== 1992 Election ==

Nice revert. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 18:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Since in the ''United States'', Ferret, we do not elect our President's with a direct popular vote, and never have, references to who won a majority percentage of the vote are misnomers. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, realise that's not how it works. It's an interesting and quite deliberate part of the design on behalf of the founding fathers. It's not about winning a majority of the voters across the nation, it's about winning a majority of the voters in the right number of states, with smaller states deliberately getting more than their proportional weight of the electoral college. I think it's a beautiful system that works as well with 50 states in 2004 as it does with 13 (vote counting issues aside!). Whether a particular president won a plurality, or absolute majority, of the vote is of interest for that very reason - it illustrates the system working exactly the way it's designed to work. Bush got the votes he needed in the states he needed - Gore did not. Simple as that, isn't it? (OK, it wasn't THAT simple, but let's not go there!) [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 05:57, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for adding the percentage on that election. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

==Catch-22==

Which novel are you referring to 'published ten years earlier' on the Catch-22 page? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: See [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980428/ai_n10413175] or [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20561858.html]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:21, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article, in this case [[kluge]]. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: [[Special:Categories]]. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 02:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

==Theory and Fact==
Please try and remain civil when it comes to altering other people's edits - there was no reason to refer to the information as "junk". If you thought it was verbose you could have just said so. Regardless, I am going to reinsert some information in a less confounding way. At the moment the flimsy terse mention of biological evolution in the article is insufficient for anyone to understand the what is considered fact and what is considered theory. It's a great example for the article. However, I don't want an edit war so my changes will only be minute at first. Regards. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

: I was civil. If I thought that verbosity were the problem, I would have said so. The reinserted text is wrong and confusing. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:54, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

: Absolutely not. There is nothing wrong with the information. If you have counter evidence regarding Modern synthesis or that evolutionists refer to the science as both a fact and theory, then that would be one thing. However, based on your actions, I can only presume that you simply don't want the information posted. Things aren't incorrect simply because you say so. If you require sources I'd be more than happy to supply them - but by dismissing the information, removing it without notification and referring to it as "junk" is slightly inflammatory. At least that's how I'm taking it. My edits are in good faith and meant to help the project of conservapedia. If you doubt this at all, just look at my edit history. Anyway, it would have been better had you and I discussed the changes first. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Your presumptions are incorrect. Evidence for and against the modern synthesis is irrelevant. The article is just about some simple definitions. I have posted on the Talk pages an example of how your own text contradicts your own sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

== [[Twin Primes]] question ==
Roger, do you think there are an [[infinite]] number of [[twin primes]]? Do you think it is provable (though obviously not proven yet)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

: I would guess yes, but until someone solves the problem, no one knows for sure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

*Roger....that is what they are still saying about being able to teach me Trig! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:16, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Shawshank Redemption ==
[http://www.shawshankredemption.net/books/the-shawshank-redemption-plot.html]"A new prisoner called Tommy comes to Shawshank prison. '''Tommy tells another prisoner, who tells Andy, that Tommy had had a cellmate at a different prison who bragged about killing a rich golfer and some hot-shot banker's wife, and the banker getting jailed for it. This is clearly the real killer of Andy's wife.''' Andy sees the possibility of a new trial since this evidence would prove his innocence. Warden Norton dismisses the story, telling Andy to ignore this made up story. When Andy argues with him warden Norton sends Andy to solitary confinement, to remind Andy of his place in the prison hierarchy." --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 05:22, 8 September 2007 (EDT)[

: That is just an argument for a court action. Nowhere does the movie say that Andy was innocent, or that he was wrongly convicted. If Andy is innocent, as you say, then for what is he being redeemed? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::I will email Steven King and ask, Roger. I just remember it from the book and movie, is all....so it must have been important to the story, otherwise I would imagine King would have snipped it. Argument for a court action? Lawyers have enough business! The way he was given the news, not expecting it, nor thinking it was coming, seems to indicate he wasn't looking for a ploy. I will revert myself back in the movie list, if you haven't already, pending my hearing back from King. Fair enough? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:35, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Whether Andy was expecting the news, or looking for a ploy, is irrelevant. He is likely to jump on any opportunity to get out of prison. The beginning of the movie show overwhelming evidence against Andy in court. It avoids showing the murderer when the trigger is pulled. Apparently the movie wanted to create some ambiguity. My question for you: Under your interpretation, what is the "redemption" of the title? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:24, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Redemption comes in many packages, I have found. Perhaps the humanity, the ability of some to maintain and even nurture the type of complex "friendship" (humanity) that the characters actually developed, in spite of their circumstances, is the "redemption". Writers speak constantly in metaphors, and not all of them built on sound ground, but in some loose manner, the characters were role-reversed, eh? The prison guard in his own prison, without walls, and the inmate in an actual one, yet actually more free? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:16, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

==Vandal==

I found a vandal named spoonboy. It seems that he deliberately changed information on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas article in order to make a mockery out of Conservapedia. He also messed up the link on the page. Please examine his edits and take action if necessary. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 22:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==Don Imus Edits==
When you remove the specific insults that Imus used, you remove the whole point of caring about things like racism and sexism. I suppose what you're suggesting is that those two things (racism and sexism) are acceptable? Perhaps we should just overlook them? If we are to learn anything from what Mr. Imus said and what happened to him as a result, we need to know exactly WHY he was fired. Now that he's been rehired by conservative bastion 770 WABC in New York, has the conservative agenda been amended to include "protect Imus?"

Again, when you remove what he said from the article, you remove any idea about how WRONG what he said was. This seems to me to be an attempt to soft-soap a racist, sexist comment. I wonder why you wish to do this. Perhaps you, yourself, agree with Mr. Imus' statements? Do YOU believe that the Rutgers University Ladies Basketball Team is a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes?" This seems a gross and base mischaracterization of a group of ladies I'm sure you are not personally acquainted with.

Since Conservapedia makes the claim that it is non-biased, and that it is supposedly the alternative to the liberal-biased WikiPedia (and the accuracy of that assessment is something I leave to another debate at another time), WHY, sir, have you seemingly attempted to slant things to FAVOR a radio personality who made RACIST and SEXIST remarks and who is employed by a major conservative media outlet?

I await your response, sir, with something approaching eagerness.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 19:00, 27 January 2008 (EDT)

: I did not remove the quote. It was someone else. You are complaining to the wrong guy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Since there was no contribution between mine and yours, sir, I feel that you are fibbing. Peruse the history of the Don Imus page and see. Perhaps someone else made the revision and used your name? Unlikely. My only conclusion is that you or someone using your name condones institutional racism and sexism in the mainstream media. If this is true of you, you ought to be ashamed. If it is someone else using your name, you ought to be outraged. Either way, at least ACT like you care.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 15:30, 29 January 2008 (EDT)

: I checked the history. You inserted the quote here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Don_Imus&diff=378862&oldid=288654] and it was removed by [User:Iduan], not me. I merely shortened your mischaracterization of what Imus said. You wrote that Imus "classified a group of female athletes as women of decidedly ill repute". That was just not correct. Imus did not say that anyone had ill repute. Please do not make false accusations against either Don Imus or me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)

How did I make false accusations against Don Imus? He called those women "nappy-headed hoes." Where I come from, "nappy-headed" is meant as an insult against the typically tightly-curled African-American hair type. "Ho," in common use, is slang for a "whore" or "prostitute," which, when you clean it up for the good old "family-friendly" Conservapedia, means "woman of ill repute."
So, to insult typically African-American hair type, and to call these women "prostitutes," hmmm, I dunno, seems like RACISM and SEXISM to me. One doesn't have to be a trust fund baby to deny the truth, but it helps, I suppose. Good day, sir. [[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 16:30, 31 January 2008 (EDT)

: You are welcome to your opinions, but your edit was inaccurate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:51, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Thanks for the Unblock ==

I do enjoy especially the part of this project which concerns the history of sciences. It just a hobby of mine, and discussions like ours are a welcomed to delve into the literature. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:15, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:RS, check me if I'm wrong, but I'm finding BRichtigen a bit of a distraction. Is he really doing good work somewhere around here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:54, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:: I can't tell if ''you'' are finding him a distraction, but how is that ''his'' fault? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::chuckle, you make a goood point there --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:38, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: I had some disagreements with BRichtigen, but he is definitely doing good work. Please do not block him. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== question of lawyers responsibility as Officer of the court ==

Hi, is a lawyer who knows his client is guilty still permitted to provide a defense or is he meant as an officer of the court , to plead guilty and attempt to mitigate the sentancing ? I realize there may be a difference between what should happen and what does happen. I lived for a while in Australia and England so it may be an issue of US law vs English .. Thanks oh, this relates to the importance of good character in the appointment of white house counsel [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 21 November 2008 (EST)

: Under US law, the lawyer is required to argue the case however the client wants to plead it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:: ok , thanks [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:22, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

and I hope the New Year will give us ample opportunity to discuss interesting topics, like we have done this year!
Yours [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 18:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year, Roger! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:33, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Continuum ==

Hi Roger. Foxtrot and I have been arguing over the Continuum article and we really need someone to step in and mediate. I have a problem with the entire second paragraph really: "The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) continuous set studied by mathematicians. No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order without endpoints. Since the complex numbers add the imaginary number, i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order. Any linear order of the complex numbers needs the Axiom of Choice to be constructed."

First of all the reference to a continuous set is unneccessary. I had never heard of such a thing. When I googled it I saw that it is an obscure notion that has no place in such a short introductory article to the topic. I see no reason to believe that the continuum was called so because it is a continuous set. My best guess is that the use of the word continuum predates the use of the term continuous set.

The second sentence about not being able to add more numbers to the reals is essentially meaningless. What do we mean by number? We are discussing the real line as an order theoretic/topological object. It is easy to extend the reals as such an object with out losing the dense linear order. This ties into the last statement. I outline in http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Continuum&curid=81756&diff=621255&oldid=621024 how to construct the lexicographic order on the complex plane. This refutes the last sentence as such an ordering doesn't use AC. In addition the complex numbers ordered in such a way is, from an order theoretic point of view, <math> \mathfrak{c}</math> many copies of the reals laid out end-to-end (if you get my meaning). This shows that not only can we add a point to the reals we can add uncountably many copies of the reals to the reals without destroying the dense linear ordering.

Thanking you in advance for your time. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 08:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Prime Number ==

You were the last editor to change the article on [[Prime Number]]s. Could you have a look at the section ''Sieve of Eratosthenes''? I tried to raise the interest in changing the - IMO poor - picture on [[Talk:Main Page]], [[Talk:Prime Number]] and [[File talk:Prime number.gif]], but no action took place. Could you have a look into it?
Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:28, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Physics]] ==
Could you please take a look to the last edits? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:20, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

: Why did you revert? I don't necessarily agree with all the edits, but they appeared to be constructive edits. Did you disagree? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:38, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

: At first it seems to be wrong in Mechanics and Thermodynamics. The editor E-mail me and I was not sure; that is why I asked your opinion. Now I will fix the mistake. Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

:: He also made some other edits. Did you object to those also? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== From PatrickD ==

There has been some discussion of the recent changes by RoyL to the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] articles. Your name came up. So you might want to look at those pages, and their histories, and their talk pages, and my [[User_talk:PatrickD]] page. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:36, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

==Small Thanks from WLink==
Wanted to thank you for the support you gave for my proposed changes on the relativity page. I am a bit saddened that some people won't see reason, but at least we gave it the old college try. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 07:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== L.A. Official: 55 Jobs After $111B Stimulus ==

The story tease on their main page said 111B.....but it is indeed 111M. Thanks for spotting it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:50, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

== Evidence ==

Should there not be evidence for this? References etc.?

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

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

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Out of curiousity ==

....what do you think about your brother's attempt to rewrite the Bible? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-11-13T19:17:54Z

MatthewQ: /* At first glance */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Relativity says information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement (which is an action-at-a-distance) is random you cannot use this to transmit a message faster..... ah, screw it. Pearls before a swine. csmcmillion, before you waste your time I'll let you know now that Aschlafly doesn't argue; he merely makes bare assertions. You can see that in past discussions I've had with him and you can see it right here. He's the fearless leader here at Conservapedia and since he doesn't like relativity any and all silly smears against it will stand, no matter how silly.
:: BTW, Roger, out of curiosity what do you think of the [[Conservative Bible Project]]? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:17, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-27T20:04:32Z

MatthewQ: /* Top 5 Bible verses */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"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."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Top 5 Bible verses==
{{cquote|If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.}}

According to the [http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-popular-bible-verses-revealed-29900/ Christian Post], the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.
{|class="wikitable"
!verse
!KJV
!NIV
!CBP
!Criticism
!CBP Contributor Responds
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 3:16
|rowspan="2"|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.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
|rowspan="1"|the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point ''unique Son'' (why ''Unique''? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as ''one and only'': υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child.
|rowspan="1"|There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).
|-
|
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 1:1
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
|There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
|-
!John 14:6
|Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
|Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
|Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
|Again, the capitalization. And then ''route'' - the ''way, path'' to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
|
|-
!Matthew 28:19
|Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
|"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,
|''ethnic groups''? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ''ethnic groups'' is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And ''divine guide'' for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
|
|-
!Romans 3:23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|''having sinned'' (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us ''sinners'' (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation!
|
|}
IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. For example, the Apostle Paul when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm#_Toc499463048 This is an example of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as ''So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm."'' shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ''ANE culture''. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

:::::What's the specific problem?
::::::You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you only read ''half a verse'', you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

{|class="wikitable"
!Verse
!Original
|-
!John 3:16
|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is in this way that we see that God has loved the world, in the giving of His only Son, that anyone believing in Him not be lost, but have life eternal. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

We do get the term "cosmos" from κόσμον, but I think here it should be translated as "people [of the world]", or "the inhabitants of the world." See [http://concordances.org/greek/2889.htm]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:46, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:yes, "cosmos" is taken from κόσμο'''ς'''. Using brackets in a translation seems to be odd: the language of these verses is simple and straightforward and shouldn't become to convoluted in the translation, IMO.

|-
!John 1:1
| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning, was the Memra. The Memra was in God's presence standing before Him: God was that Memra!

Read "Targum Onkelos" in this article http://www.conservapedia.com/Targum [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!John 14:6
|λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.

Jesus says to him "I am that pathway, and also the truth and the life. No one can get to the Father except it be by going through me." [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Matthew 28:19
| πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Go, teach all the peoples, performing the Rite of Immersion for their entrance into the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Romans 3:23
|πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

Everyone has sinned and with respect to the Glory of God, found wanting.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|}
--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

:Professional writers who are exceptional know the language they are writing in very well. Why should translating language be any different when it involves knowing two languages? Plus, with an ancient language from a different society the cultural milieu can be radically different and make things more difficult. Andy's claim that a novice can do it just as well is a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does the Bible have antipathy towards having more knowledge/experience/skill? No, it does not. Solomon wrote: "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men." (Proverbs 22:29). Societies that have contempt towards people who are more knowledgeable have caused unnecessary suffering and put their societies in a disadvantageous position when competing against other societies. For example, the Khmer Rouge killed people with glasses. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was dismissive of knowledge/expertise and failed. Do experts sometimes go beyond their expertise due to pride? For example, make unwarranted claims about matters of opinion? Yes, they do. But this doesn't give one a license to be unskillful/ignorant and pretend we can do just as well as someone who is more skillful. Plus, there is no great demand for Bible's translated by novices. There are untold problems/opportunities in the world. Conservapedians should focus on these problems rather engage in bush league translating when more knowledgeable teams of translators can do a much better job. Here is a lesson from history on the value of expertise: 17,000 United Nations troops did not do as good a job as about 100 highly trained troops from the firm Executive Outcomes as far as fighting murderous rebels. The Bible deserves a team of "[[Naval Special Warfare|SEALS]]" to do translating and not a bunch of people who have a gun thrown in their hand. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:52, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

MatthewQ, I agree with your point that we need the highly trained in some field to further the common good. And there are the highly trained in many fields to do what no single man can do, and should not be expected to do. "Leveling out" so no one has expertise, or feeling that any Joe can do any job is suicidal for the individual and for society, including the Church. And I think that most of the work on the Bible translation project is not translation but putting things into one's own words. Is there value to it? Yes. I think great value. But another viewpoint - I am fairly proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and its dialects, and Greek, but I readily tell people that there is very little I can get from the Scriptures in their original languages that they can not get from almost all of the English version Bibles that I am familiar with. The experts are needed, and they do their work and we have their English versions. But almost all people get a tremendous boost and depth of understanding from the process of digging into the English version they have, puting things "in their own words", re-presenting it to others for their input, etc. And this is what I see has happened in the process of doing the Conservative Bible translation project. I really don't demand that it be "translation", and it would be better not to claim that, but there has been a value and a blessing in doing the work. Much of what we think we are doing, anyway, is, in reality, doing something else, but that does not denude it of value. One other thing, some of the people involved in the work, are, indeed, based in the original languages. They mnay not be experts, but they are developing. You could say, there are future translaters in our midst. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 11:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

: I'm Catholic and the Church tells us we must understand the original intentions of the authors. From [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html the Vatican's website]:
:: "However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
:: To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." '''For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.''' (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) [Emphasis added]"
: Out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church expressed any opinion on the Conservative Bible Project? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy's position seems to very odd. He recognizes that language and culture are intertwined and one must be knowledgeable about this. However, he only seems to apply that reasoning to the language the text is being translated into (i.e, contemporary English), not the language which it is being translated from (i.e, ancient Hebrew, Greek). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:04, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-27T19:20:12Z

MatthewQ: /* Top 5 Bible verses */ I agree with the Catholic Church

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-26T22:07:02Z

MatthewQ: /* Top 5 Bible verses */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"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."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Top 5 Bible verses==
{{cquote|If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.}}

According to the [http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-popular-bible-verses-revealed-29900/ Christian Post], the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.
{|class="wikitable"
!verse
!KJV
!NIV
!CBP
!Criticism
!CBP Contributor Responds
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 3:16
|rowspan="2"|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.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
|rowspan="1"|the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point ''unique Son'' (why ''Unique''? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as ''one and only'': υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child.
|rowspan="1"|There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).
|-
|
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
!John 1:1
|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
!John 14:6
|Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
|Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
|Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
|Again, the capitalization. And then ''route'' - the ''way, path'' to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
|
|-
!Matthew 28:19
|Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
|"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,
|''ethnic groups''? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ''ethnic groups'' is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And ''divine guide'' for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
|
|-
!Romans 3:23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|''having sinned'' (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us ''sinners'' (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation!
|
|}
IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. For example, the Apostle Paul when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm#_Toc499463048 This is an example of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as ''So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm."'' shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ''ANE culture''. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

:::::What's the specific problem?

:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

{|class="wikitable"
!Verse
!Original
|-
!John 3:16
|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
|-
!John 1:1
| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
|-
!John 14:6
|λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.
|-
!Matthew 28:19
| πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
|-
!Romans 3:23
|πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,
|}
--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-25T05:19:13Z

MatthewQ: /* Good points, but ... */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"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."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-25T04:37:42Z

MatthewQ: /* Good points, but ... */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Third, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5.

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"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."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-25T04:20:17Z

MatthewQ: /* Good points, but ... */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"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."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-25T04:08:33Z

MatthewQ: /* Good points, but ... */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"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."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-25T03:18:57Z

MatthewQ: /* Good points, but ... */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-10-23T06:32:55Z

MatthewQ: /* Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

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

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

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

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Social Sciences ==

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

== Shroud of Turin ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section on bloodletting ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Sociology ==

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

== Calvin's argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-10-23T00:46:20Z

MatthewQ: /* Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

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

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

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

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Social Sciences ==

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

== Shroud of Turin ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section on bloodletting ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

== Sociology ==

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

== Calvin's argument ==

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

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

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

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

Talk:Nobel Prize

2011-10-04T16:33:58Z

MatthewQ: /* No bias in the prize */

==Discovery of what?==
YO! [[User:Sid_3050]], the sentence, ''"In two cases, the Nobel Prize was denied to the person most responsible for the discovery apparently..."'' meaning the discovery of ''what'', exactly? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:...why are you asking ME? I didn't add that sentence. Check the edit history. However, the two cases are shown in the following paragraphs. For what it's worth: The article doesn't state what discovery Hoyle should have received a Nobel Prize for, ''as I pointed out in my edit summary''. General advice: Chill out, yo. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Oh sorry. It was the [[User:Aschlafly | Boss]]' edit. I'm chilly already, but, hey, thanks for the advice. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Awesome! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Damadian's exclusion - possible reason==
Actually if you look around you'll find other possible reasons that Damadian at least didn't get the Nobel (I'm not familiar with Hoyle). See, for example: [http://whyfiles.org/188nobel_mri/2.html]. It would be more accurate to say that some think it's because of his view of evolution, or something to that effect, since clearly other reasons have been put forth.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reagan and the Pope==
The article says "as the prize was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II" but does not state *why* they should have received the prize, or even which Nobel Prize.

:Hm, good point. I'll see if I can dig out what this sentence is based on. For now, the stub note and the fact tags are enough to say "This article should be taken with a grain of salt", but you are of course correct, and the sentence should go if it can't be backed and/or explained. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Reagan may be considered by some to be one of the US's great Presidents, but compared to the Red Cross, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dali Lama, I would think it would be hard to justify why he would receive the Nobel Peace Prize. --[[User:Brewer13210|Todd]] 11:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::But compared to Jimmy Carter, Yasar Arafat, Kofi Anan, and Al Gore, it would think that it would be easy to justify.

==Thoughts after some initial research==
The more I dig around, the more I feel tempted to just wipe out most of this article and start from scratch. Things I currently have issues with
*"The selection process has become political, as the prize was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II [...]"
**Says who? Anybody of interest? And what do they base their argument on? What makes Reagan and the pope so much more awesome than the other candidates? A search for ''"Ronald Reagan" "Nobel Prize"'' did not reveal a striking result from what I saw.
*"and has not been given to anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution"
**VERY hard to verify. Prizes for more than a hundred years in several fields.
*"The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken liberals, such as Jimmy Carter."
**What is "mostly"? Numbers would be nice. And what definition of "liberal" are we working with? [[Liberal|This one]]? And what's the point?
*"He (Hoyle) was the leader on the project recognized with a Nobel Prize"
**The Nobel Prize went to Fowler and Chandrasekhar. I currently can't verify that they worked together in a project led by Hoyle. And while we're at it, I can't even verify that Hoyle and Chandrasekhar ever worked together.
*"Hoyle was an outspoken critic of the theories of chemical evolution."
**This is actually sourced, but initially said "...critic of the theory of evolution". While the previous version surely fits better into the ongoing theme, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution chemical evolution] appears to be something else. In the current version, it's a nice side story, but it doesn't really fit into the whole Creationism theme, so it stands "a bit" out. (See also the section below)
*"Another omission was for Raymond Damadian, another critic of the theory of evolution, who invented the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner"
**The first part actually appears to be true, but the second part is a bit odd. As Murray pointed out above, there are other explanations that don't require the belief that there is a conspiracy against Creationists.
*"Recently, there have been proponents of an alternate scientific award given to scientists who support Biblical principles."
**Like with the first part: Says who? I wouldn't even know how to properly search for such an suggestion.
In the face of the current article, I will most likely do a from-scratch attempt these days unless there is great opposition. I might include Hoyle and Damadian's stories, but with a bit more balance and context. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent Idea --[[USer:Brewer13210|Todd]] 9:51 18, March 2007 EDT

==Hoyle and the Nobel Prize==
While fishing around for more about Hoyle, I found [http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/physicalscience/story/0,9836,541270,00.html this article]. Here is an interesting quote:
{{QuoteBox|Fowler was awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 1983, and why Hoyle was not included in this award remains a mystery hidden in the confidential documents of the Royal Swedish Academy. The editor of the scientific journal Nature suggested that the academy did not wish to be associated with any endorsement of another idea then being promulgated by Hoyle. This was linked to Hoyle's belief that life must be of frequent occurrence in the universe. He argued that the primeval molecules from which life evolved on Earth had been transported from elsewhere in the universe. In itself this idea would not necessarily be rejected as absurd by the scientific community, but Hoyle had publicised a further argument that influenza epidemics were associated with the passage of the Earth through certain meteor streams, the particles of which conveyed the virus to Earth. 
 
This was dismissed as fictional by nearly all members of the biological and physical scientific disciplines. Indeed, the idea belonged more to Hoyle's activity as a writer of science fiction for over three decades.}}
And I dunno, but this may have possibly influenced his reputation a little bit, too:
{{QuoteBox|He was a fluent writer and speaker and became the main expositor of this new theory of the steady state, or continuous creation, according to which the universe had existed for an infinite past time and would continue infinitely into the future, as opposed to what Hoyle styled the "big bang" theory. 
[...] 
The conflict with the conventional idea that the universe had a specific origin billions of years in time past was absolute. Until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965, the observational evidence was inconclusive and the emotive feelings aroused led to one of the bitterest scientific divisions of the century. Hoyle never accepted the complete defeat of the continuous creation theory, and long after the "big bang" universe had become conventional scientific wisdom he continued to probe its defects.}}
Since it's 4am here, I won't draw binding conclusions here, but I think the material sheds some interesting light on Hoyle and the mystery of his denied Nobel Prize. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Rewrite ==

I've rewritten the article basically from scratch to include sources and some general history. I left out all unsourced statements - not because I "censor" anything, but because they were unsourced and my searches could not verify the claims.

The part about Hoyle is currently missing completely. I might put him back in later, but I figured I'd submit this version for the moment so people can comment and stuff.

Potential expansions of the Damadian case should most likely be done in his article, but that's just my current opinion. Thanks to Bturpin for the additional source there, by the way. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Very nice work==

Bravo [[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]!! Very nice work. Cleaned it up real good like. Nice and neutral w/o the pejorative aspects of its former self. (I'm not a big fan of the "chip on the shoulder" tone that many articles here seem to have.)
Again nice work. We'll have to get a list of winners and maybe flesh it out with a box or something. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you kindly! :) A list of the winners would be... long. Seven categories, more than a hundred years, yearly prizes... What might work would be an extra page per section, with this main article only listing the most recent winners and linking to the extra pages for more info. A template/box with info or links sounds like a nice idea, though!
:There is still quite a bit of history and stuff that could be added, but it'll take some long-term community work (long history pages like the Nobel Foundation one are dry reading for me =P). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:54, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's too much controversy, and nothing about the valuable contributions made by non-controversial recipients. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:40, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Milton Friedman ==

Milton Friedman, a conservative economist and proponent of [[monetarism]] and neoclassicism, is a laureate of the economics prize. His win ought to be included alongside claims that there is an "unwritten rule" that conservatives "are not awarded the prize." Other conservative Nobel winners include Ronald Coase and Friedrich von Hayek.

== Fred Hoyle ==

Added some stuff about Hoyle - the discovery he made with Fowler actually made him stop being an atheist!! No wonder he didn't get the prize. Hope the edit's ok - please change back if necessary. Nick Bowler 18:15 (GMT) 21 Nov 2009

:Your edit is superb. I strengthened it further by noting that Fowler had done much of his work under the direction and leadership of Hoyle."

:Didn't know the bit about the discovery converting Hoyle to [[faith]]. Feel free to add that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:39, 21 November 2009 (EST)

== No bias in the prize ==

It is inaccurate to claim that there is a political bias in how the prize has been awarded. Liberals and conservatives have won a Nobel prize in every field throughout the prize's history. Furthermore, the prize has been awarded to scientists and thinkers who, often quite controversially, stand against the "party lines" on various issues in their respected fields.

Notable conservatives and advocates of controversial positions who have won the prize include:

::Kary Mullis (1993, Chemistry)--advocated strongly against [[global warming]] and [[HIV]] as the causative agent of AIDS

::[[Winston Churchill]] (1953, Literature)--member of the British Conservative Party

::[[Milton Friedman]] (1976, Economics)--Economic adviser to [[Ronald Reagan]], and a vocal libertarian

::James Buchanan (1986, Economics)--Vocal libertarian, has founded several libertarian political groups

This list is far from exhaustive, but it does illustrate the general lack of political bias in the Nobel committees. What the Nobel prize seeks to recognize is the overall impact of an individual's contribution to their field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:41, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

::Your list underscores the bias. Friedman said he wasn't a conservative, and I don't think Buchanan is one either. As to Mullis, his award preceded the [[global warming]] liberal orthodoxy. Winston Churchill is the exception more than a half-century ago that "proves the rule" that has been enforced with increasing bias ever since.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::: How about Mother Teresa, who won in 1979? He was a Christian who was against abortion, divorce and contraceptives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:27, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: That was more than 30 years ago, and Mother Teresa did not criticize the liberals theories of [[theory of evolution|evolution]] or [[theory of relativity|relativity]]. None of the scientists who have criticized those liberal falsehoods has ever been given a Nobel Prize, despite their tremendous achievements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: The comment above was addressing the 'Bias against conservatives'. I haven't heard anyone describe relativity as a 'liberal falsehood' outside of this blog. I've heard 'Jewish falsehood' though....

::::: Anyway, more examples of conservatives who have won the prize:

:::::*Gary Becker (1992, Economics)

:::::*Henry Kissinger (1973, Peace)

:::::*[[George Stigler]] (1982, Economics; his Conservapedia article has him categorized as a conservative.)

:::::*Mario Vargas Llosa (2010, Literature; famous for critcizing Latin American far left)

:::::*Robert Mundell (1999, Economics; strong champion of tax cuts that inspired Reagan to do so)

:::::*William Golding (1983, Literature)

:::::*[[Ronald Coase|Ronald Coase ]]( 1991, Economics; par of the Chicago School of Economics and famous for his [[Coase theorem|eponymous theorem]])

:::::On Coase, [[Liberals_and_friendship|Conservapedia]] notes: "Nobel laureate Ronald Coase described how he was victimized by disparaging whispers at cocktail parties about his conservative economic positions". That was added by you, by the way.

:::::I await the rationalizations as to why these clear examples of conservative Nobel laureates does not disprove the Stockholm Liberal Conspiracy. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 12:33, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Concerning evolution, I can't, simply because the theory of evolution is so much an integral part of modern biomedical science (the evidence is overwhelming, you may as well concede that point). As for relativity, like evolution, that's been improved upon quite a bit. So long as all you're trying to argue are the original points of the theory, any Nobel prize winner in physics for the past thirty years would suffice. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:54, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Nobel Prize

2011-10-04T01:27:43Z

MatthewQ: /* No bias in the prize */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-09-29T05:46:21Z

MatthewQ: /* Ummmm... */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-09-28T15:27:25Z

MatthewQ: /* Ummmm... */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Essay: Worst Liberal Books

2011-09-27T15:55:10Z

MatthewQ:

Book stores and libraries are filled with books that are filled with [[liberal bias]] and [[liberal falsehoods]]. Here is a list of the absolutely worst that should be avoided.

==Published as Non-fiction==

# ''The Communist Manifesto'' by [[Karl Marx]] and Friedrich Engels. Inspired communist atrocities that killed millions.
#''Das Kapital'' by Karl Marx
# ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' by [[Charles Darwin]]. Anti-God, evolutionist view of life.
#''The Audacity of Hope'' by [[Barack Obama]].
# ''Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media'' by [[Noam Chomsky]] and Edward S. Herman. Conspiracist book claiming conservatives control the media.
# ''A People's History of the United States'' by Howard Zinn.
#''[[Quotations from Chairman Mao]]'' by [[Mao Zedong]] - along with ''The Communist Manifesto'', one of the most beloved tracts of [[communism]]

==Published as Fictional==

#''The Dispossessed'' by Ursula Le Guin. Communistic, utopian outlook on society.
#''The Good Earth'' by Pearl S. Buck. The reasoning is similar to that listed for ''The Dispossessed''.

Please add more!

==See Also==

* [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books]]
* [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels]]

[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels

2011-09-27T15:53:11Z

MatthewQ:

Conservative novels exist, and some are immensely influential. Here is our growing list. Please add to it.
#''The Brothers Karamazov'', by [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]]
#''Crime and Punishment'', by [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]]
#''The First Circle'', by [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]].
#''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'', by [[Robert Heinlein]]
#''Starship Troopers'', by [[Robert Heinlein]]
#''Lord of the Rings'' by [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]
#''The Man Who Was Thursday'', by [[G.K. Chesterton]]
#''Darkness at Noon'', by [[Arthur Koestler]]
#''The Camp of the Saints'', by [[Jean Raspail]]
#''Saving the Queen'' (and the other Blackford Oakes novels) by [[William F. Buckley]]
#''State of Fear'' by [[Michael Crichton]]
#''For Whom the Bell Tolls'' by [[Ernest Hemingway]] - U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain cited this as his favorite novel.
#''The Red Badge of Courage'' by [[Stephen Crane]]
#''The Road'' by Cormac McCarthy - winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction
#''Nuremberg: The Reckoning'' by [[William F. Buckley, Jr]]
#''Gilead'' by [[Marilynne Robinson]]
#''The Naked and the Dead'' by [[Norman Mailer]]
#''No Country for Old Men'' by [[Cormac McCarthy]]
#''The Bonfire of the Vanities'' by [[Tom Wolfe]]
#''Midcentury'' by [[John Dos Passos]]
#''Advise and Consent'' by [[Allen Drury]]
#''American Pastoral'' by [[Philip Roth]] - winner of the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction
#''Rainbow Six'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''Clear and Present Danger'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''Red Storm Rising'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''The Bridges at Toko-Ri'' by [[James Michener]]
#''Animal Farm'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''1984'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''The Road to Wigan Pier'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''A Midnight Clear'' by [[William Wharton]]
#''The Thin Red Line'' by [[James Jones]]
#''Quo Vadis: A Narrative of the Time of Nero'' by [[Henryk Sienkiewicz]]
#''The Day of the Jackal'' by [[Frederick Forsyth]]
#''Master and Commander'' by [[Patrick O'Brian]]
#''To the White Sea'' by [[James Dickey]]
#''Edge of Danger'' by [[Jack Higgins]]
#''Brave New World'' by [[Aldous Huxley]]
#''The Idiot'' by [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]]
#''The Overton Window'' by [[Glenn Beck]]
#''The Fountainhead'' By [[Ayn Rand]]
#''The Great Gatsby'' by [[F. Scott Fitzgerald]]
#''Little Women'' by [[Louisa May Alcott]]

==See Also==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books]]
*[[Essay: Worst Liberal Books]]

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-09-15T00:13:35Z

MatthewQ: /* Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

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

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

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

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Social Sciences ==

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

== Shroud of Turin ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section on bloodletting ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

Conservative Dictionary Project (T)

2011-09-12T06:28:21Z

MatthewQ:

: '''taboo'''
: ''True conservative meaning'' - Morally wrong breaking of societal norms.
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - Titillating.

: '''tax-and-spend'''
:Date: 1937
: [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
: ''True conservative meaning'' - taking people's [[money]] through [[tax|taxes]] and spending it recklessly without their consent
:'' False liberal redefinition'' - taxing to pay for [[social programs]] that benefit the [[poverty|needy and less fortunate]]

: '''Teabagger'''
:Date: 2007
: ''True conservative meaning'' - one who supports the [[Tea Party]]
:'' False liberal redefinition'' - (definition inappropriate for family website)

: '''Tea Party'''
: ''True conservative meaning'' - [[Grassroots organization]] founded by [[Real Americans]] opposed to [[big government]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]].
:'' False liberal redefinition'' - A bunch of crazy [[racism|racists]] who are part of an [[astro turfing]] campaign.

: '''Totalitarian'''
: ''True conservative meaning'' - A [[liberal]] type of governance where one ruler exerts control over every aspect of [[life]]
:'' False liberal redefinition'' - A single ruler state

: '''traditionalist'''
:Date: 1856
: [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
: ''True conservative meaning'' - one who adheres to [[tradition]]
:'' False liberal redefinition'' - one who [[fear|fears]] change and wants to cling to a nostalgized past that never actually existed

:''' [[trade union]]'''
:(also called '''labor union''', or just '''union''')
:Date: 18th century
: ''True conservative meaning'' - [[corruption|corrupt]] leaders supposedly representing workers while secretly supporting [[Democrat|Democrats]]
: '' False liberal redefinition'' - an organization that provides [[democracy|democratic]] representation to workers in order for them to have a say in matters of the workplace (e.g, work safety, wages, policies etc.)

: '''[[truth]]'''
: ''True Conservative meaning'' - Absolute truth which cannot be argued. (See [[Bible]], [[conservative principles]]).
: '' False liberal redefinition'' - An abstract concept used by [[religion|religious]] to justify their [[faith]].

{{ConservativeDictionary}}

Mangrove rivulus

2011-09-09T03:01:53Z

MatthewQ: Undo revision 912370 by DHWatson (talk)

{{Taxonomy
|name=Mangrove rivulus
|image=Rivulus.jpg
|caption=
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Osteichthyes
|subclass=Actinopterygii
|infraclass=Actinopteri
|superorder=Acanthopterygii
|order=Cyprinodontiformes
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Aplocheilidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=Rivulus
|subgenus=
|species=R. marmoratus
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
The '''Mangrove rivulus''' (''Rivulus marmoratus'') is a tropical [[fish]] that lives in mangrove swamps across the Americas and can survive out of water for months. Evolutionists claim that this is similar to how [[animals]] adapted to land millions of years ago, although [[creationism|creationists]], especially [[Young Earth Creationism|young-earth creationists]], dispute that claim.

''When their habitat dries up, they live on the land in logs, said Scott Taylor, a researcher at the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program in central [[Florida]].'' <ref> [http://www.optevi.net/newstracker/default.aspx?f=3&e=69124 Tropical fish can live for months out of water] </ref>

The fish can grow as large as three inches. They group together in logs hollowed out by insects and breathe air through their skin instead of their gills until they can find water again.

== See also ==
[[Image:Taylor.jpg|thumb| Scott Taylor]]
*[[Cod]]
*[[Royal Fish]]

== External links ==

*[http://wbsa.logos.com/article.asp?id=2896 What the Bible Says About Fish]
*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21792369/ Mangrove Rivulus]

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Fish]]

Unit elasticity of demand

2011-09-09T02:59:50Z

MatthewQ: Undo revision 912369 by DHWatson (talk)

'''Unit price elasticity of demand''', or unitary [[demand]], is when an increase in [[price]] causes the same percent decrease in quantity demanded, and total [[revenue]] (price times quantity) remains unchanged.

[[Category:Economics]]

Conservative Dictionary Project (M)

2011-09-09T02:59:22Z

MatthewQ: Undo revision 912371 by DHWatson (talk)

: '''Marriage'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A union between one man and one woman under God.
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - A legally-binding domestic relationship between consenting adults.

: '''Man'''
: ''True conservative meaning'' - Woman's companion
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - Equal to a woman

: '''McCarthyism'''
:Date: 1950
:''True conservative meaning'' - going after communists
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - to harass/intimidate people and accuse them of treason without good evidence, merely because they hold leftist views

: '''meritocracy'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1958
:''True conservative meaning'' - A system where a person's place in life is decided by merit and talent See [[Conservapedia]]

: '''Minutemen (historic)'''
: ''True conservative meaning'' - A group of elite American fighters during the revolutionary war. Possibly the first commandos.
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - Americans that were able to quickly be armed (within a minute) to repel British attacks.

: '''Minutemen (present)'''
: ''True conservative meaning'' - A group of volunteers who valiantly defend our country and its values from Mexican influence by stopping illegals from crossing the border.
:'' False liberal redefinition'' - Crazy, violent vigilantes.

: '''moving the goalposts'''
:Date: late 1980s
:''True conservative meaning'' - accusation evolutionist use to avoid answering questions
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - a fallacy where agreed upon conditions for determining an argument are arbitrarily changed after the conditions have been met

:''' mobocracy'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1754
:''True conservative meaning'' - rule by mob (see [[Wikipedia]])
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a democratic, co-operative, participatory and anti-hierarchical system

: '''moral majority'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1979
:''True conservative meaning'' - a Christian conservative movement
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a far-right, religious fanatic organization that wishes to establish a theocracy in the United States

{{ConservativeDictionary}}

Conservative Dictionary Project (H)

2011-09-09T02:48:23Z

MatthewQ:

: '''hate crime'''
:Date: 2007
: ''True conservative meaning'' - An attempt to punish people for their belief in biblical law.
:'' False liberal redefinition'' - Laws intended to protect minorities and homosexuals from violence.

: '''homeschool'''
:Date: 1980
: [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative Word]]
:''True conservative meaning'' - teaching by mom/dad or instructor under direction of mom/dad; contrast with [[public schools]]
:''False liberal redefinition'' - propagandistic education, by an unqualified teacher, designed so that the student doesn't learn about ideas outside the parents' ideology in [[public schools]]

: '''[[homosexuality]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - sexual relations with someone of the same gender: a hedonistic and wrong choice
:''False liberal redefinition'' - one of several possible sexualities a person can be born with

:''' homosexual agenda'''
:Date: 1989
: [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative Word]]
:''True conservative meaning'' - agenda to give homosexuals special rights and make kids gay
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - a movement designed to give homosexuals equal status to that of heterosexuals and rid of bigotry against homosexuals

: '''humanism'''
:Date:
: [[Essay:New Liberal Terms| Liberal term]]
:''True conservative meaning'' - atheistic view
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - a ethical philosophy that rejects supernaturalism and centers on purely human values, interests and dignity

{{ConservativeDictionary}}

Conservative Dictionary Project (M)

2011-09-09T02:37:07Z

MatthewQ:

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-08T03:45:37Z

MatthewQ: /* Parody */

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine '''Zebra''', you let us know.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
::::: The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pretty much each one i removed was never going to experience a definition change unless the language itself started to shift, or was parody. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Languages shift all the time. Again, I think we should ask Mr. Schlafly the purpose of the project before removing entries. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::: They have redefined '''Zebra''' as a member of the Equidae family, as opposed to the horse baramin. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 22:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Considering Equidae is also known as horses anyways... this is honestly not a big deal.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

User talk:MatthewQ

2011-09-08T02:45:40Z

MatthewQ: /* Did you... do a strange edit summary that i somehow took over or...? */

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 16:14, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Did you... do a strange edit summary that i somehow took over or...? ==

--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:30, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

: I'm not sure what you're talking about. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:40, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::''(diff | hist) . . Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project‎; 21:28 . . (+271) . . SeanS (Talk | contribs | block) (→Parody: It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester a)'', That--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:42, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: No, I didn't write that. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

User talk:MatthewQ

2011-09-08T02:40:39Z

MatthewQ:

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-08T02:39:27Z

MatthewQ: /* Parody */

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine '''Zebra''', you let us know.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
::::: The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-08T02:27:18Z

MatthewQ: /* Parody */

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-08T02:26:35Z

MatthewQ: /* Parody */

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone removed suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative Dictionary Project (P)

2011-09-07T14:16:55Z

MatthewQ: Created page with ": '''patriotism''' :Conservative word :Date: 1729 :''True conservative meaning'' - love for one's country :''False liberal redefinition'' - ..."

: '''patriotism'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1729
:''True conservative meaning'' - love for one's country
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a militaristic and jingoistic belief in the superiority of one's own nation

:'''phone'''
:Date:
:''True conservative meaning'' - an instrument that transmits sound across distances

:'''pirate'''
:Date: 14th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - a person who plunders and robs ships at sea

: '''privatize'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1940
:''True conservative meaning'' - to give an industry over from the state to private control
:''False liberal redefinition'' - handing over an industry from government, which is accountable to the people, to unaccountable private tyrannies known as corporations

{{Navbox
|name=Conservative Dictionary Project
|basestyle=font-size: 105%; background-color:#0000cf;
|title=[[Conservative Dictionary Project|Conservative Dictionary Project]]

|group1style=font-size: 85%; background-color:#bf0000;
|group1='''A-M'''
|list1style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white;
|list1 = [[Conservative Dictionary Project (A)|A]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (B)|B]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (C)|C]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (D)|D]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (E)|E]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (F)|F]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (G)|G]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (H)|H]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (I)|I]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (J)|J]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (K)|K]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (L)|L]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (M)|M]]

|group2style=font-size: 85%; background-color:#bf0000;
|group2='''N-Z'''
|list2style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white
|list2 = [[Conservative Dictionary Project (N)|N]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (O)|O]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (P)|P]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Q)|Q]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (R)|R]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (S)|S]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (T)|T]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (U)|U]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (V)|V]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (W)|W]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (X)|X]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Y)|Y]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Z)|Z]]
}}
[[Category:Conservative Dictionary Project]]

Conservative Dictionary Project (D)

2011-09-06T21:46:33Z

MatthewQ:

:'''[[Darwinism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - The false religion of evolution.
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - A pejorative term used by Creationists to refer to evolution.

:'''[[decriminalization]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - The act of removing criminal penalties from crimes.
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - Compassion regarding addiction and other crimes.

:'''[[Democrat]]'''
:Date: 1789
:''True conservative meaning'' - member of the tax-and-spend, anti-Christian and pro-abortion [[Democratic Party]].
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - someone who supports democracy

:'''deltiology'''
:Date: 1648
:''True conservative meaning'' - the study and collection of postcards

:'''demagogue'''
:Date: 1648
:''True conservative meaning'' - a leader who obtains power through [[liberal deceit]]

:'''[[deregulation]]'''
:Date: 1963
:''True conservative meaning'' - allowing companies to make profits without constant government interference
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - getting rid of laws, passed and enforced by a democratic government, that curb the excesses and harmful practices of businesses

:'''[[dictator]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A despot who rules without the consent of the people. See [[Barack Hussein Obama]].
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - any conservative leader.

:'''door'''
:Date: 12th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - a entry to a room or building; usually hinged or sliding

:'''doorknob'''
:Date: 1835
:''True conservative meaning'' - the knob on a door

{{Navbox
|name=Conservative Dictionary Project
|basestyle=font-size: 105%; background-color:#0000cf;
|title=[[Conservative Dictionary Project|Conservative Dictionary Project]]

|group1style=font-size: 85%; background-color:#bf0000;
|group1='''A-M'''
|list1style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white;
|list1 = [[Conservative Dictionary Project (A)|A]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (B)|B]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (C)|C]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (D)|D]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (E)|E]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (F)|F]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (G)|G]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (H)|H]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (I)|I]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (J)|J]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (K)|K]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (L)|L]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (M)|M]]

|group2style=font-size: 85%; background-color:#bf0000;
|group2='''N-Z'''
|list2style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white
|list2 = [[Conservative Dictionary Project (N)|N]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (O)|O]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (P)|P]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Q)|Q]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (R)|R]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (S)|S]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (T)|T]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (U)|U]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (V)|V]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (W)|W]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (X)|X]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Y)|Y]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Z)|Z]]
}}

Conservative Dictionary Project (M)

2011-09-06T17:29:09Z

MatthewQ: Created page with ": '''McCarthyism''' :Date: 1950 :''True conservative meaning'' - going after communists : ''False liberal redefinition'' - to harass/intimidate people and accuse them of treason..."

: '''McCarthyism'''
:Date: 1950
:''True conservative meaning'' - going after communists
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - to harass/intimidate people and accuse them of treason without good evidence, merely for holding leftist views

: '''meritocracy'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1958
:''True conservative meaning'' - a system where rulers are chosen based on merit and talent

: '''moving the goalposts'''
:Date: late 1980s
:''True conservative meaning'' - accusation evolutionist use to avoid answering questions
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - a fallacy where agreed upon conditions for determining an argument are arbitrarily changed after the conditions have been met

:''' mobocracy'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1754
:''True conservative meaning'' - rule by mob (see [[Wikipedia]])
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a democratic, co-operative, participatory and anti-hierarchical system

: '''moral majority'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1979
:''True conservative meaning'' - a Christian conservative movement
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a far-right, religious fanatic organization that wishes to establish a theocracy in the United States

{{Navbox
|name=Conservative Dictionary Project
|basestyle=font-size: 105%; background-color:#0000cf;
|title=[[Conservative Dictionary Project|Conservative Dictionary Project]]

|group1style=font-size: 85%; background-color:#bf0000;
|group1='''A-M'''
|list1style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white;
|list1 = [[Conservative Dictionary Project (A)|A]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (B)|B]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (C)|C]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (D)|D]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (E)|E]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (F)|F]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (G)|G]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (H)|H]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (I)|I]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (J)|J]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (K)|K]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (L)|L]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (M)|M]]

|group2style=font-size: 85%; background-color:#bf0000;
|group2='''N-Z'''
|list2style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white
|list2 = [[Conservative Dictionary Project (N)|N]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (O)|O]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (P)|P]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Q)|Q]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (R)|R]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (S)|S]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (T)|T]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (U)|U]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (V)|V]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (W)|W]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (X)|X]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Y)|Y]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Z)|Z]]
}}

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-09-01T03:41:54Z

MatthewQ: /* Relativity and Electromagnetism */ correcting self

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-09-01T02:18:38Z

MatthewQ: /* Relativity and Electromagnetism */ NASA didn't get memo from relativity cabal

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)