Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-05-15T21:29:33Z

MiddleMan: /* Sept 11 comments */

Richard Feynman

2007-05-15T20:56:03Z

MiddleMan: m

[[Image:Htdeyt56.png|right|thumb]]
'''Richard Feynman''' (1918-1988) was an American physicist.

After studying at M.I.T. and Princeton University, he assisted in the development of the [[atomic bomb]] at [[Los Alamos]].

Feynman's major contribution was to [[quantum electrodynamics]]. He introduced the diagrams, now called [[Feynman diagrams]], which are used to describe the behaviour of systems of interacting particles. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965.

He had a leading role in the investigation of the crash of the [[space shuttle]] Challenger.

Feynman liked to tell a story about how when he was a little kid, he asked his father, "Why do things fall?" As an adult, he praised his father for answering, "Nobody knows why things fall. It's a deep mystery, and the smartest people in the world don't know the basic reason for it." Contrast that with the average person's off-the-cuff answer, "Oh, it's because of gravity." Feynman liked his father's answer, because his father realized that simply giving a name to something didn't mean that you understood it. [http://www.vias.org/physics/bk1_05_01.html]

[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Feynman.html Biography]

[[Category:Physicists|Feynman, Richard]]

Talk:Race

2007-05-15T20:54:40Z

MiddleMan: /* Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook? */

== Since the Great Flood ==

In my opinion, this part should at least be introduced as "According to Creationists" or "For those who believe in...".[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Its a [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|conservative fact]], see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean conservatives ''wish''it were a fact. Which is not the same thing as it being a ''fact''--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: I just got blocked by CPAdmin, I guess for removing it (nobody gave me a reason), but then when Speaker made the same edit, it's remained. I don't really understand this place. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neanderthal==
They seem to have forgotten the Neanderthal. As it is currently listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on this website it should be listed as one of the races.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Only if it says so in the Bible. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook?==
Good Freaking God. Newsflash: Asians are not "yellow." Native Americans are not "Red." Stupidpedia strikes again!--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:If this article is going to mention what science once thought about races, then at least get it right. The original physical anthropologists that developed the biological race model had only three races: Caucasians, Mongloids, and Negroids.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Whaaa...you mean the scientists, to whom we all genuflect before as barers and guardians of truth and knowledge, have been ''wrong''? Wow. And those scientific facts were once used to promote and justify racism and genocide? My word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my God!!Scientists actually make mistakes like every other person on this planet, and if they are proven wrong they actually change their theories?? Wait...Wait...Oh that's right...science is an open system as opposed to a closed system. Duh...[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:At least we are out of the dark ages, where persecution and genocide was done in the name of Christianity and the Church. Thank heaven. Now we at least have atheists, rationalists, and science to blame for our progressive thinking which results in mass murder. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah...good thing those white Christian upper-class gentlemen in the 19th century needing some way of justifying racist policies could turn to science to do their dirty work.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, isn't science a Bitc*? I mean, instead of living in your cave, following the sheep around, now you have central heat, air, the internet, the internal combustion engine. Dang, science make these Christians so miserable.--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It was science that gave <s>mankind</s> personkind Zyklon B, and the instructions how to use it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::What? So science was wrong in the past. Isn't there something in the Bible about the sins of the fathers? How is that relevant to science today? Part of science's ''strength'' is that it changes with new discoveries...-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
And it was non-scientific politicans that decided to use it. Same as the atom bomb, dynamite, and napalm. So would you also blame the company that makes the gun used to kill someone, or the person that pulled the trigger?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Good point.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My point is that you really sound ignorant villifying science like that. Last time I checked there weren't a whole helluva lot of people with polio or smallpox around anymore. If one day your appendix blows science has made it possible for you to still survive without being bled by leeches. How many peopl are saved by organ transplants every year? Science did that for you. Science in and of itself doesn't kill.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Right. Science create napalm, VX gas, Sarin gas, etc., and it's "progress"; then when poltical leaders try to stop the spread of '''this brilliant knowledge''', where are they to be found? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... Union of Concerned Scienists that are against nuclear weapons, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and alot of other scientists that are against such things. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Oh really? Where did these groups stand vis a vis allowing Mr. Saddam Hussein to retain classrooms with students obtaining this knowledge, (i.e. Saddams WMD programs). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) There wasn't much they could do about Saddam.

B) The poison gas? You don't exactly have to be a Nobel-Prize winner to make that stuff.

C) Clear example of the powers that be, abusing science and scientists for their own evil purposes.
Every new invention will sooner or later be turned into a weapon by <s>ignorant laymen</s> politicians, scientists regret this, but feel it is no reason to stop progress.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You know the list that RobS gave us all have political ties and backing. So is it the scientists or the politicians?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) Oh, so they really don't give a rip. So much for the morality of scientists.

B) Precisely the point.

C) See response to A. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:If you're so angry at science, RobS, then don't use it anymore, turn off your computer, and stop posting at CP :-/. Otherwise you might just have to accept that the issue's a little more complicated than you'd like to think.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

While you're at it: don't wear synthetic clothing, never go to a doctor, don't drive a car, don't use electricity, don't use a cellphone, don't fly on airplanes, don't take the bus, don't eat food that's not from the nature shop, don't read books or newspapers (you're allowed to have a papyrus Bible), don't wear a watch, don't wear glasses, don't take the train, don't use deodorant, shampoo or soap, don't go to the movies, don't take pictures, don't paint your house, don't use paper, don't use anything made out of plastic, don't use a bank account...

Well there's not much you can do without science, it seems...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::You all might want to consider taking it down a notch. Any tool for manipulating or understanding the world, be it science or a ball peen hammer, can be misused. We obviously cannot live in this world in any reasonable way without science...the next world, well, a different story. But now, we are here, so we must strive to use all of our tools morally. You shouldn't slam a hammer into someone's head just because it is the right tool for the job. You shouldn't alter science to fit an ideology, just because it is a good tool for the job.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 16:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

2007-05-14T19:28:47Z

MiddleMan:

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' states that the [[entropy]] of an isolated system tends to increase. <ref> “Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6 </ref>

According to this law, it is impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]], and entropy in a completely closed system must either increase or remain constant.

==The three forms of the Second Law of Thermodynamics==
There are three different types of systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can apply to:

* Isolated system - Does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

==Interpretation==
A simplification caused by misinterpretation says: disorder will increase within a closed system.

Actually entropy is a little more abstract and the second law of thermodynamics means something like this: the universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past: there are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==Entropy and disorder for dummies==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that what happens if you let nature take it's course".
Imagine your old room at your parent's house: remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fitted a specific, non-uniform design (order): not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances: and the chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming orderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from.)

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (remember that E=mc^2 so this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Albert Einstein

2007-05-14T19:01:24Z

MiddleMan: /* Views On Judaism and Zionism */

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|thumb|220px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was a theoretical physicist. He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany in a Jewish familiy. During his stay at the Swiss Patent Office Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the Photoelectric Effect in 1921. <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref> Einstein immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that President Franklin D. Roosevelt develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate pacifist. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of Israel, but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, New Jersey at the age of 76.

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of Photoelectric Effect, Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an anomaly in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
Arthur Eddington popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2007, NASA reported early results from their satellite Gravity Probe B, confirming 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' Einstein's assertion that large objects such as the Earth distort the fabric of space and time.<ref> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html</ref> The Gravity Probe B project, a joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University, used the most precise gyroscopes ever manufactured to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Robert Massey of the Royal Astronomical Society said: 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, E=mc², the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,'

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by H. Poincare. E stands for [[energy]], m is [[mass]], and c is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass and you release a huge amount of [[energy]].

The connection E=mc2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as Ernest Rutherford, understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 H. G. Wells novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). What Einstein did was to provide a theoretical framework that accounted for the release of energy, and a quantitative theory that was used by the scientists at Los Alamos who designed and built the bomb.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===

Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*Relativity (English translations, 1920 and 1950)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement (1926)
*The Evolution of Physics (1938)
*About Zionism (1930)
*Why War? (1933),
*My Philosophy (1934)
*(The World As I See It) (1934)
*Out of My Later Years (1950)

''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921. His citation did not mention relativity.

He gained the Copley Medal of the Royal Society of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>[http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president]</ref> but respectfully declined because he believed his life-long scientific attitude of objectivity made him an inappropriate candidate for such a high political position, he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by "Time" magazine.

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to President <ref>[[Roosevelt]] [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml]</ref>, with the support of his colleagues, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself has never been involved in the Manhattan project led by Fermi and he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

Germany was never able to develop nuclear weapons, partly because it rejected "Jewish science" which included the work of Einstein, as a consequence German physicists had to reinvent nuclear physics.{{fact}}

==Controversy Surrounding His Death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>NPR, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913]</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harve had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remains with Harvey.{{fact}}

==Religion==
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
He explained his religious views to Time magazine in this manner: “I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607298,00.html</ref>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>

Which shows that while Einstein reject the traditional personal God of Judaism and Christianity, he does believe in the existence of higher power(s).

==Views On Judaism and Zionism==
Einstein's exact views on Zionism remain unclear until today.

In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein do not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but rejected the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archieved in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Whatever his views on Zionism were, Einstein has always expressed his pacifism and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== False attributions ==
Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call special relativity. He did not discover the Lorentz transformation, or the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein. He was not the first to propose that the speed of light is constant for all observers, or that the aether is superfluous and not observable. He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity. He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional spacetime in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.

Einstein was not the first to observe the equation E=mc2 as a consequence of special relativity, or to foresee its application to nuclear binding energies or antimatter annihilation. He did not foresee a nuclear chain reaction and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an atomic bomb.

Einstein did not originate the idea of using metric tensors to reconcile gravity with special relativity. It was not his idea to describe gravity in covariant equations, and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible. He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of general relativity, and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the expansion of the universe, the possibility of black holes, or dark energy.

Einstein never developed a unified field theory of any significance. He published papers on quantum mechanics, but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation. He did not believe in a personal God, but did not consider himself an atheist either.

Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources."

==References==
<references/>

*"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]
*"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]
*"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
*Michael Paterniti, Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]
*"Confusion regarding Einstein's Religion"[http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2004/04/confusion.html]

[[Category:Physicists|Einstein, Albert]]

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2007-05-14T18:55:49Z

MiddleMan: /* Eternal Universe? */

{{protect|Conservative}}

=Draft=

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

=Discussion=

== Conservative's edits ==

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

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

== Further problems with recent edits ==

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

== Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing. ==

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

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

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

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

== 55% - macroevolution ==

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

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

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

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

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

== Unproofed theories are not wrong theories ==

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

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

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

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

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

Here are two links for proof of relativity:

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

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

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

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

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

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

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

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

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

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

== Proof ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This article is a travesty ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Exactly. Leave the Christian views on an ''equal footing'' as they are.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Equal footing does ''not'' mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--[[User:M|M]] 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You're a bit slow responding to ''that'' comment! What misinformation is in the article? If I agree, I will remove/modify/clarify it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::''(M's reply has been moved to a new section below ([[#Misinformation|Misinformation]]) for clarity.)—Philip J. Rayment''

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

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

The 6,000 year time estimate must be wrong. [[Stonehenge]] is older than that. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 21:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, but that's where you've fallen for the [[Worldwide Evil Science Conspiracy]]'s vile deception. Someone who read the Bible says that it says the earth is only 6000 years old, so any so-called 'discoveries' that contradict that are EVIL LIES BY [[SATAN]] [[fnord]].

:You know, this is a typical example of the bias so many anti-creationists have. There are two contradictory claims, but rather than test both claims to see which one (or both) is wrong, they simply use one claim to disprove the other claim. I could just as logically claim that the estimated age of [[Stonehenge]] must be wrong, because the Earth is only 6,000 years old. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

But it must be true - Conservapedia says so on http://www.conservapedia.com/Stonehenge , honest. Maybe years lasted longer in the old days and they're only going faster know because the earth has sped up or something, a bit like how a year felt like forever when you were a child but they just fly by now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 21:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== spent time proofreading ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Unprotected subpages==

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

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

== Theory of Evolution - The Resurrection ==

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

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

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

== Title does not fit content ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Misinformation ==

''(Continuation of a discussion starting in [[#This article is a travesty|This article is a travesty]], above. I have also reformatted [[user:M|M's]] posts a little—Philip J. Rayment.)''

Sorry if I'm posting on a dead comment; I was just skimming Conservapedia briefly before I left for class this morning. As for misinformation, there's a few things...the section on transitional fossils is simply disgraceful, for one thing. No mention whatsoever of ancestral whale fossils, the early mammal ancestors (as they split off from reptiles), the elephant or horse ancestral lines, or the australopithecines or other fossil hominids...and the two that it does mention, ''Archaeopteryx'' and ''Tiktaalik'', it dismisses for no good reason. (Referring to Archaeopteryx as a 'perching bird'...and completely disregarding the fact that it possessed ''teeth'' and a reptilian tail, for one thing!)

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

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

(There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not.

Conservapedia ''is'' supposed to be about an accurate and balanced viewpoint, isn't it?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

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

{{QuoteBox|"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831}}
And here's the ''complete'' quote:

{{QuoteBox|`In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

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

`These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature.' (page 832) }}

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

:Most of what you list there is not ''misinformation'' per se, but ''omission of information'' that you think should be there. That's something quite different.
:I'd say that the reason that the article doesn't have the fossils that you mention (whales, early-mammals, elephants, horses, hominids) is that there are no such transitional fossils between different kinds of creatures. (That is, for example, there are fossils that appear intermediate between different types of horses, but not between horses and something else.)
:You say that it dismisses ''Archaeopteryx'' for no good reason, but you are wrong for several reasons. (1) It is not dismissing ''Archaeopteryx'', it is quoting Alan Fedducia dismissing ''Archaeopteryx''. (Admittedly the footnote does not make that clear, but if you look at the reference, you can see that. I'm in the process of improving the footnotes.) (2) So what that it had teeth? Some other extinct birds had teeth; that doesn't make it transitional. (3) It ''did not'' have a reptilian tail—it had the tail of an ''Archaeopteryx''! That it might have some similarities to a reptilian tail doesn't make it a reptilian tail and doesn't make it transitional. Besides, I don't know of any reptile that had feathers on its tail!
:As for ''Tiktaalik'', you haven't explained what is 'not good' about the reasons.
: Discrimination is not "assumed"; it is well documented.
: "''There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not''". As do you. Perhaps there are none?
: Conservapedia is supposed to be about an accurate viewpoint; I'm not so sure about the balanced bit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: How is the quote out of context? It is being used to show that ''fossils'' do not support evolution, not that there is no support at all for evolution. The "missing" part of the quote is talking about ''other'' evidence; it doesn't change the first part where he talks about ''fossil'' evidence, at least by my quick reading.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==

In regard to E.J.H. Corner's quote, here is the rest of it:

"The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.

"Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh).

Please remove the quote from the article or add it in its entirety.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Why? You haven't explained what's wrong with just quoting the part that's quoted. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The above paragraph wasn't displaying properly -- it looks like four spaces is wiki markup for preformatted text, or something. I changed the spacing and added an initial quote mark to the second paragraph for readability.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:A single leading space is wiki markup for preformatted text. The extra spaces are redundant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Conflict of Interest?==

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] appears to be the primary editor on this page, and also the editor who has a hammer lock on the [[Evolution]] page. Isn't this an inherent conflict of interest? I appreciate that the purpose of this wiki is to present the conservative spin on things, and not necessarily the objective truth, but surely having a single person's POV coloring two diametrically opposed articles is contrary to that mission. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 22:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:Didn't you know? The "conservative spin" IS "the objective truth". :-)
:Seriously, it's not a conflict of interest to edit two articles with opposing viewpoints. If that was the case, it effectively means that only conservatives could edit some articles and only liberals could edit other articles, etc.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::I take your point, and if Conservative's purpose was to make both articles accurate then I would agree with you. But clearly he is pushing some form of YEC agenda, presenting YEC as at least on par with if not superior to evolution, and avoiding criticism thereof, and inserting long debunked creationist "critical analysis" into the evolution article while removing supporting evidence. This smacks to me of conflict of interest. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::But YEC ''is'' superior to evolution! And I disagree that the creationist stuff has been debunked (although I'm not saying that ''absolutely none'' of the stuff Conservative has put is has been debunked; I haven't checked every single bit).
:::However, I'm not make a general defence of the way that any particular editor (other than me!) has presented something. There's always room for improvement, and if you have any ''specific'' concerns that you don't feel comfortable changing yourself (or can't because an article is protected), please mention them and I'll either incorporate them or explain why I don't agree. (The [[Theory of Evolution]] article is an exception, though, because my reading of the Panel's decision is that no changes should be made to the main body of the article without their approval.)
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Eternal Universe?==

I already brought this up at the [[Universe]] article, but I'm gonna ask it again.

What is a statement about an eternal universe doing here, no one believes in an eternal universe, certainly no evolutionists or astronomers.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:::Creationist assert both the universe is not eternal and that is was created supernaturally and that the first and second law of thermodynamics points to the universe being supernaturally created. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Historically some have believed in an eternal universe, so it's probably worth mentioning on those grounds alone. And [http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ this] seems to suggest that perhaps some still do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:13, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, but it's no valid claim against evolution, since evolutionists don't believe in an eternal universe, also the claim that it points toward a supernatural creation is based on a grave misunderstanding: a simplification that says disorder will increase.

Actually entropy is a little more abstract and the second law of thermodynamics means something like this: the universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past: there are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

An eternal universe would also need an influx of hydrogen into the universe, because the original supply would have been depleted long ago by fusion inside stars.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:The 2nd law is something that I thought I understood, and I still think that I largely do, but I'm probably a bit fuzzy on the exact details when it comes to disorder, so I won't dispute you on that.
:But isn't that getting a little bit off the topic? We were talking about an eternal universe. I agree with you that such a thing doesn't make sense, but the point is that some believed it and I gather that some still do, so it is worth addressing.
:As for the "misunderstanding", perhaps (and I'm speculating here) the editor who put in the bit about thermodynamics is arguing that the 2nd law indicates that the universe had a beginning (with which you agree) and that this could only be by a supernatural creation. Thus putting those two points together, the 2nd law points to a supernatural creation. This without bringing "increasing disorder" into the equation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

A beginning? Yes.

A supernatural beginning? No way of knowing --> pointless speculation --> not science.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2007-05-14T18:55:40Z

MiddleMan: /* Eternal Universe? */

{{protect|Conservative}}

=Draft=

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

=Discussion=

== Conservative's edits ==

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

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

== Further problems with recent edits ==

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

== Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing. ==

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

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

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

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

== 55% - macroevolution ==

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

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

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

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

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

== Unproofed theories are not wrong theories ==

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

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

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

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

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

Here are two links for proof of relativity:

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

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

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

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

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

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

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

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

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

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

== Proof ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This article is a travesty ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Exactly. Leave the Christian views on an ''equal footing'' as they are.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Equal footing does ''not'' mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--[[User:M|M]] 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You're a bit slow responding to ''that'' comment! What misinformation is in the article? If I agree, I will remove/modify/clarify it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::''(M's reply has been moved to a new section below ([[#Misinformation|Misinformation]]) for clarity.)—Philip J. Rayment''

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

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

The 6,000 year time estimate must be wrong. [[Stonehenge]] is older than that. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 21:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, but that's where you've fallen for the [[Worldwide Evil Science Conspiracy]]'s vile deception. Someone who read the Bible says that it says the earth is only 6000 years old, so any so-called 'discoveries' that contradict that are EVIL LIES BY [[SATAN]] [[fnord]].

:You know, this is a typical example of the bias so many anti-creationists have. There are two contradictory claims, but rather than test both claims to see which one (or both) is wrong, they simply use one claim to disprove the other claim. I could just as logically claim that the estimated age of [[Stonehenge]] must be wrong, because the Earth is only 6,000 years old. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

But it must be true - Conservapedia says so on http://www.conservapedia.com/Stonehenge , honest. Maybe years lasted longer in the old days and they're only going faster know because the earth has sped up or something, a bit like how a year felt like forever when you were a child but they just fly by now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 21:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== spent time proofreading ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Unprotected subpages==

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

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

== Theory of Evolution - The Resurrection ==

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

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

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

== Title does not fit content ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Misinformation ==

''(Continuation of a discussion starting in [[#This article is a travesty|This article is a travesty]], above. I have also reformatted [[user:M|M's]] posts a little—Philip J. Rayment.)''

Sorry if I'm posting on a dead comment; I was just skimming Conservapedia briefly before I left for class this morning. As for misinformation, there's a few things...the section on transitional fossils is simply disgraceful, for one thing. No mention whatsoever of ancestral whale fossils, the early mammal ancestors (as they split off from reptiles), the elephant or horse ancestral lines, or the australopithecines or other fossil hominids...and the two that it does mention, ''Archaeopteryx'' and ''Tiktaalik'', it dismisses for no good reason. (Referring to Archaeopteryx as a 'perching bird'...and completely disregarding the fact that it possessed ''teeth'' and a reptilian tail, for one thing!)

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

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

(There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not.

Conservapedia ''is'' supposed to be about an accurate and balanced viewpoint, isn't it?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

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

{{QuoteBox|"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831}}
And here's the ''complete'' quote:

{{QuoteBox|`In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

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

`These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature.' (page 832) }}

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

:Most of what you list there is not ''misinformation'' per se, but ''omission of information'' that you think should be there. That's something quite different.
:I'd say that the reason that the article doesn't have the fossils that you mention (whales, early-mammals, elephants, horses, hominids) is that there are no such transitional fossils between different kinds of creatures. (That is, for example, there are fossils that appear intermediate between different types of horses, but not between horses and something else.)
:You say that it dismisses ''Archaeopteryx'' for no good reason, but you are wrong for several reasons. (1) It is not dismissing ''Archaeopteryx'', it is quoting Alan Fedducia dismissing ''Archaeopteryx''. (Admittedly the footnote does not make that clear, but if you look at the reference, you can see that. I'm in the process of improving the footnotes.) (2) So what that it had teeth? Some other extinct birds had teeth; that doesn't make it transitional. (3) It ''did not'' have a reptilian tail—it had the tail of an ''Archaeopteryx''! That it might have some similarities to a reptilian tail doesn't make it a reptilian tail and doesn't make it transitional. Besides, I don't know of any reptile that had feathers on its tail!
:As for ''Tiktaalik'', you haven't explained what is 'not good' about the reasons.
: Discrimination is not "assumed"; it is well documented.
: "''There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not''". As do you. Perhaps there are none?
: Conservapedia is supposed to be about an accurate viewpoint; I'm not so sure about the balanced bit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: How is the quote out of context? It is being used to show that ''fossils'' do not support evolution, not that there is no support at all for evolution. The "missing" part of the quote is talking about ''other'' evidence; it doesn't change the first part where he talks about ''fossil'' evidence, at least by my quick reading.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==

In regard to E.J.H. Corner's quote, here is the rest of it:

"The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.

"Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh).

Please remove the quote from the article or add it in its entirety.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Why? You haven't explained what's wrong with just quoting the part that's quoted. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The above paragraph wasn't displaying properly -- it looks like four spaces is wiki markup for preformatted text, or something. I changed the spacing and added an initial quote mark to the second paragraph for readability.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:A single leading space is wiki markup for preformatted text. The extra spaces are redundant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Conflict of Interest?==

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] appears to be the primary editor on this page, and also the editor who has a hammer lock on the [[Evolution]] page. Isn't this an inherent conflict of interest? I appreciate that the purpose of this wiki is to present the conservative spin on things, and not necessarily the objective truth, but surely having a single person's POV coloring two diametrically opposed articles is contrary to that mission. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 22:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:Didn't you know? The "conservative spin" IS "the objective truth". :-)
:Seriously, it's not a conflict of interest to edit two articles with opposing viewpoints. If that was the case, it effectively means that only conservatives could edit some articles and only liberals could edit other articles, etc.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::I take your point, and if Conservative's purpose was to make both articles accurate then I would agree with you. But clearly he is pushing some form of YEC agenda, presenting YEC as at least on par with if not superior to evolution, and avoiding criticism thereof, and inserting long debunked creationist "critical analysis" into the evolution article while removing supporting evidence. This smacks to me of conflict of interest. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::But YEC ''is'' superior to evolution! And I disagree that the creationist stuff has been debunked (although I'm not saying that ''absolutely none'' of the stuff Conservative has put is has been debunked; I haven't checked every single bit).
:::However, I'm not make a general defence of the way that any particular editor (other than me!) has presented something. There's always room for improvement, and if you have any ''specific'' concerns that you don't feel comfortable changing yourself (or can't because an article is protected), please mention them and I'll either incorporate them or explain why I don't agree. (The [[Theory of Evolution]] article is an exception, though, because my reading of the Panel's decision is that no changes should be made to the main body of the article without their approval.)
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Eternal Universe?==

I already brought this up at the [[Universe]] article, but I'm gonna ask it again.

What is a statement about an eternal universe doing here, no one believes in an eternal universe, certainly no evolutionists or astronomers.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:::Creationist assert both the universe is not eternal and that is was created supernaturally and that the first and second law of thermodynamics points to the universe being supernaturally created. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Historically some have believed in an eternal universe, so it's probably worth mentioning on those grounds alone. And [http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ this] seems to suggest that perhaps some still do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:13, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, but it's no valid claim against evolution, since evolutionists don't believe in an eternal universe, also the claim that it points toward a supernatural creation is based on a grave misunderstanding: a simplification that says disorder will increase.

Actually entropy is a little more abstract and the second law of thermodynamics means something like this: the universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past: there are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

An eternal universe would also need an influx of hydrogen into the universe, because the original supply would have been depleted long ago by fusion inside stars.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:The 2nd law is something that I thought I understood, and I still think that I largely do, but I'm probably a bit fuzzy on the exact details when it comes to disorder, so I won't dispute you on that.
:But isn't that getting a little bit off the topic? We were talking about an eternal universe. I agree with you that such a thing doesn't make sense, but the point is that some believed it and I gather that some still do, so it is worth addressing.
:As for the "misunderstanding", perhaps (and I'm speculating here) the editor who put in the bit about thermodynamics is arguing that the 2nd law indicates that the universe had a beginning (with which you agree) and that this could only be by a supernatural creation. Thus putting those two points together, the 2nd law points to a supernatural creation. This without bringing "increasing disorder" into the equation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

A beginning? Yes.
A supernatural beginning? No way of knowing --> pointless speculation --> not science.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Netherlands

2007-05-14T18:52:21Z

Homo neanderthalensis

2007-05-14T18:26:38Z

MiddleMan:

[[Image:Neanderthals.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Modern reconstruction of Neanderthal men.]]
The first fossil humanoid to be identified as such, and the best known, named after remains found in the [[Neanderthal]] valley in western [[Germany]] in 1856. ''Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis'' is found throughout [[Europe]] and the [[Near East]] and also the remainder of the [[Old World]] in variant forms, during the late Middle and Upper Pleistocene circa 80,000 to 30,000 years ago. Within western Europe the remains are associated with the middle [[palaeolithic]] [[Mousterian]] stone tool industries that disappeared with the arrival of [[Cro-magnon]] man (early modern Humans.)

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Human_Skeleton.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Neanderthal (left) and human (right) skeletons, showing both the similarities and the differences between the species.]]
A Neanderthal was a fully erect biped of stocky build, with a long low skull, prominent brow ridges and [[occiputs]], and a jutting face.
Neanderthals were on average more muscular than humans and lacked a chin, they were social creatures living in small tribes, like the humans of their time, Neanderthals also possessed the skull features required for speech <ref>Neanderthal Myths Neanderthal, Channel 4 [http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/N/neanderthal/]</ref>.
The popular impression of him as a stooping brute is incorrect and derives from the original poor reconstruction in the Neanderthal valley. It has also been suggested that the first individual found suffered from vitamin D deficiency ([[rickets]]) or [[syphilis]].
Whether Neanderthals did interbreed, or if this was even possible remains unknown, so far the small amounts of Neanderthal [[DNA]] found do not suggest a recent genetic link between the species
<ref>Odd man out: Neanderthals and modern humans British Archaeology [http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba51/ba51feat.html]</ref>.

Homo neanderthalensis also had an average brainsize of 1,450 cc with a range from 1,125cc to 1,750cc. Average modern humna brain size is 1,330cc, presumably the Neanderthal needed this extra brain mass to control his larger muscle mass.
Many Neanderthal fossils have been recovered showing massive amounts of wear on the teeth, which to many physical anthropologists suggests that the teeth were regularly used for gripping skins during stretching and working.
<ref>The Dawn of Human Culture Klein, Richard, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 2002.</ref>

==Society==
Neanderthals were probably about as intelligent as an average human, they were social creatures living in small tribes, like the humans of their time, studies suggest that Neanderthal tribes interacted less with each other than human tribes did.

Neanderthals had the ability to make fire, for food they relied on hunting, they were probably strictly carnivorous <ref>Living like a Neanderthal Neanderthal, Channel 4 [http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/N/neanderthal/]</ref>.
They never invented projectile weapons but relied on spears with limited range, even when facing large animals, their robust bodies enabled them to use this hunting style that was considered far too dangerous by humans.
A common hunting technique was to drive prey animals off a cliff, or corner them prey and finish them of with spears, much like today's [[Pygmees]] hunt elephants.

Evidence of care for the elderly and the sick has been found <ref>Neanderthals on Trial University of Minnesota, Duluth [http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/video/On_Trial.html]</ref>, they also used medicinal plants, made clothes out of animal skins and used stone tools. Neanderthals performed elaborate burying rituals, suggesting some sort of religion <ref>Early Man Andy Simmons [http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~simmonds/Sophy/early_man.htm]</ref>.
Interestingly archaeologists have never found Neanderthal cave drawings, although handcrafted art has been found <ref>Neanderthal 'face' found in Loire BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm]</ref>.

==History==
[[Image:Neanderthal_sites.gif|right|thumb|350px|The last refuges of the Neanderthals.]]
Neanderthal man developed from ''Homo erectus'', though the widespread distribution of intermediate form hinders an attempt to resolve any single geographical locality as the place of development. The fate of Neanderthals is equally hard or determine, we know they went extinct between 28,000 and 24,000 years ago
<ref>Neanderthals' 'last rock refuge' BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5343266.stm]</ref>, but we don't know how or why: many theories have been presented, these are the most common ones:

- Climate changes. <ref> Climate Change Pushed Neanderthal Into Extinction In Iberian Peninsula GeneticArchaeology.com [http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/Climate_Change_Pushed_Neanderthal_Into_Extinction_In_Iberian_Peninsula.asp]</ref>

- Competition with humans over resources. <ref>Did Use of Free Trade Cause Neanderthal Extinction? Newswise [http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/510666/]</ref>

- Their reliance on meat. <ref>Meaty appetites may have caused Neanderthal extinction Science & Spirit [http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=317]</ref>

- Assimilation into the larger human population. <ref>The assimilation model, modern human origins in Europe and the extinction of Neanderthals Fred H. Smith, Ivor Jankovic, Ivor Karavanic [http://www.ffzg.hr/arheo/prap/the%20assimilation%20model.pdf]</ref>

- An interspecies "Zeroth World War". <ref>Odd man out: Neanderthals and modern humans British Archaeology [http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba51/ba51feat.html]</ref>

It is likely a combination of at least some of these factors led to the extinction of the Neanderthals.

Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of [[transitional fossil]]s along a subsidiary branch, an evolutionary dead end.

For the Young Earth Creationist's view on the Neanderthal click [[Homo neanderthalensis (Creationist's view)|here]].

[[Category:Primates]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

==References==
<references/>