Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:AFD Exotheology

2007-06-08T03:15:51Z

MyaR: forgot to sign

== Exotheology==
===Delete===
The entry has nothing to do with the title, save the first sentence. It lacks any proper sources (the ones given don't support what's claimed on the entry at all!) and many claims are speculative or simply opinion. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Seconded. Most of the material should be merged with [[UFO]]. But it looks like Andy and Conservative want to get this one on the front page by tomorrow [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#help_with_your_life_in_outer_space_article] so who knows? [[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 00:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That's the name for the belief in life in outer space. It is from Time magazine, a liberal publication. Do you have a better alternative?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you sure you don't mean "Exobiology", which even its own enthusiasts admit is a 'science without a subject"? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Funny, the Time articles cited explicitly refers to exotheology as the theology of outer space, not the belief in ET life. Moreover, the article 's entire point is about the effect ET life could have on God. And even funnier is how the liberal publication's article entire point is how ET life could even reinforce the Christian God. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Delete'''. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between exotheology and the study of extraterestial (sp?) life. Nevermind the fact that saying alien life is a liberal belief, this article is embarassing to have on the front page.

::::: Delete. The article itself reads very confused, and the passing swipe at a 'liberal belief system' speaks for itself. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

My main argument is that this article is certainly not good enough for the front page, where it is currently being referred to from. Embarassing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete.''' This article is trash. '''Exotheology''' probably doesn't deserve an article. '''Exobiology''' certainly deserves a better one. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 17:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete,''' or at least fix it. Very little of the article actually addresses the stated subject, which is a form of speculative philosophy, not a science (or pseudoscience). The sources are also kind of lacking. I found a few hits for exotheology through Google and Google Scholar. There's a fair amount of popular information on exotheology, and journal articles by Hoffman and Haught. It shouldn't be hard to write a good exo-t. article. But I wouldn't want to use this as a starting point.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 19:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete,''' article dosnt even define what exotheology is, it allso contains some claims which the citations dont confirm, for example the last one about most scientists doubting existence of life outside earth. Allmost nothing on this article has anything to do with the topic. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete'''. This article is shockingly bad, and an example of hte mocking traffic it brings in can be seen in the section below. Great job putting in the front page :-P -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' The article is irrelevant as if there were extraterrestrial life, it would be mentioned in the Bible. -[[User:Roofus|Roofus]] 00:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' Clearly, the (round rubber things that vehicles use and '''trigger the spam filter''' hahahahah) grind slowly, and, as this article shows, none-too-finely. I'm so glad it hasn't been deleted yet, though. It warms my heart with glee, it really does. But I still have to vote for 'delete', because really, I like a lot of non-whackjob conservatives. [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 23:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

=== Keep ===
The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is the same argument they made against funding the Columbus expedition. The bible never mentioned any "new world" [[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 10:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Nonsense, the exploration of the new world was based on the common sense observation that the world was round and partially unmapped, combined with extrapolating from the observed fact that humans were widespread in the known world. It was entirely reasonable to send ships to trade with and explore the blank bits of the map.
:::By contrast, exobiologists concoct a fantasy version of space that is the exact opposite of what has been observed. The hard science of it is that the universe is big and empty. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 12:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Nor did the Bible define the world (''cosmos'') as limited to the Eurasian-African contiguous land mass. And even the ''inhabited'' world (''oikoumenes'') could stretch to fit.
::::What the Bible has no warrant for is ''extraterrestrial nation-states and civilizations.'' If you want more details, see my article on [[extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''STRONG KEEP''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:: Care to elaborate on that? Why? Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:The author does not explain the title at all! The subject of exotheology has nothing to do with "the psuedoscience of ET life." It's about how outer space affects theological issues. Break the word down into its roots, exo and theology. Heck, even the articles cited '''explicitly''' state that exotheology is the theology of outer space. '''Not''' belief in ET life. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Leave it up. It shows newbies to the site a VERY good idea what to expect from the rest of it. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 20:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

omigawd. Please, please, please keep this article. I have already copied it because I suspect it will be deleted. I need the proof because my co-workers will not beleive me. You know, some sites have referred to conservapedia as "stupidpedia," and here is the proof! AK1053287

'''Keep''' per the two votes above. While some of us run around creating small articles about things in the real world, there is a subset of this site that is "classic". This article is definitely one of them. [[User:Human|Human]] 15:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''Keep.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Why?

Conservapedia:AFD Exotheology

2007-06-08T03:15:19Z

MyaR:

== Exotheology==
===Delete===
The entry has nothing to do with the title, save the first sentence. It lacks any proper sources (the ones given don't support what's claimed on the entry at all!) and many claims are speculative or simply opinion. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Seconded. Most of the material should be merged with [[UFO]]. But it looks like Andy and Conservative want to get this one on the front page by tomorrow [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#help_with_your_life_in_outer_space_article] so who knows? [[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 00:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That's the name for the belief in life in outer space. It is from Time magazine, a liberal publication. Do you have a better alternative?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you sure you don't mean "Exobiology", which even its own enthusiasts admit is a 'science without a subject"? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Funny, the Time articles cited explicitly refers to exotheology as the theology of outer space, not the belief in ET life. Moreover, the article 's entire point is about the effect ET life could have on God. And even funnier is how the liberal publication's article entire point is how ET life could even reinforce the Christian God. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Delete'''. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between exotheology and the study of extraterestial (sp?) life. Nevermind the fact that saying alien life is a liberal belief, this article is embarassing to have on the front page.

::::: Delete. The article itself reads very confused, and the passing swipe at a 'liberal belief system' speaks for itself. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

My main argument is that this article is certainly not good enough for the front page, where it is currently being referred to from. Embarassing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete.''' This article is trash. '''Exotheology''' probably doesn't deserve an article. '''Exobiology''' certainly deserves a better one. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 17:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete,''' or at least fix it. Very little of the article actually addresses the stated subject, which is a form of speculative philosophy, not a science (or pseudoscience). The sources are also kind of lacking. I found a few hits for exotheology through Google and Google Scholar. There's a fair amount of popular information on exotheology, and journal articles by Hoffman and Haught. It shouldn't be hard to write a good exo-t. article. But I wouldn't want to use this as a starting point.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 19:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete,''' article dosnt even define what exotheology is, it allso contains some claims which the citations dont confirm, for example the last one about most scientists doubting existence of life outside earth. Allmost nothing on this article has anything to do with the topic. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete'''. This article is shockingly bad, and an example of hte mocking traffic it brings in can be seen in the section below. Great job putting in the front page :-P -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' The article is irrelevant as if there were extraterrestrial life, it would be mentioned in the Bible. -[[User:Roofus|Roofus]] 00:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' Clearly, the (round rubber things that vehicles use and '''trigger the spam filter''' hahahahah) grind slowly, and, as this article shows, none-too-finely. I'm so glad it hasn't been deleted yet, though. It warms my heart with glee, it really does. But I still have to vote for 'delete', because really, I like a lot of non-whackjob conservatives.

=== Keep ===
The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is the same argument they made against funding the Columbus expedition. The bible never mentioned any "new world" [[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 10:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Nonsense, the exploration of the new world was based on the common sense observation that the world was round and partially unmapped, combined with extrapolating from the observed fact that humans were widespread in the known world. It was entirely reasonable to send ships to trade with and explore the blank bits of the map.
:::By contrast, exobiologists concoct a fantasy version of space that is the exact opposite of what has been observed. The hard science of it is that the universe is big and empty. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 12:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Nor did the Bible define the world (''cosmos'') as limited to the Eurasian-African contiguous land mass. And even the ''inhabited'' world (''oikoumenes'') could stretch to fit.
::::What the Bible has no warrant for is ''extraterrestrial nation-states and civilizations.'' If you want more details, see my article on [[extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''STRONG KEEP''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:: Care to elaborate on that? Why? Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:The author does not explain the title at all! The subject of exotheology has nothing to do with "the psuedoscience of ET life." It's about how outer space affects theological issues. Break the word down into its roots, exo and theology. Heck, even the articles cited '''explicitly''' state that exotheology is the theology of outer space. '''Not''' belief in ET life. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Leave it up. It shows newbies to the site a VERY good idea what to expect from the rest of it. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 20:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

omigawd. Please, please, please keep this article. I have already copied it because I suspect it will be deleted. I need the proof because my co-workers will not beleive me. You know, some sites have referred to conservapedia as "stupidpedia," and here is the proof! AK1053287

'''Keep''' per the two votes above. While some of us run around creating small articles about things in the real world, there is a subset of this site that is "classic". This article is definitely one of them. [[User:Human|Human]] 15:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''Keep.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Why?

Talk:Loch Ness Monster

2007-06-01T19:42:16Z

MyaR:

== This statement need attributions if it is true. I personally doubt there has been a survey ==

It is considered by most to be a legendary hoax. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

TWO WORDS: "Tree fiddy" --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article needs total re-work==

This article has no sourced claims, and gives way to much weight to theories that there really IS a creature. In desperate need of qualification and skepticism. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed. Nessie exists as much as Sasquatch or the Abominable Snowman From what I've seen/read, Nessie was a hoax from day one. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 16:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::Although I personally believe in Nessie, I agree there's no direct proof, and the article should reflect that. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Link to Video ==

Can we link to video of the most recent "sighting?" [[User:FredK|FredK]]

Oops, my link didn't work. Fixing, I hope. [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 15:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
: Urg, forgot how to do the references right, but the link's there with the video. Sorry, gotta run or I'd figure out how to fix it. [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 15:42, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Loch Ness Monster

2007-06-01T19:36:29Z

MyaR:

The '''Loch Ness monster''', also known as Nessie, is a well known [[cryptid]] claimed to live in [[Loch Ness]], a large lake in Scotland. Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported.

==Theories==

There are numerous theories to explain the reported sightings of the monster,
but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Nessie enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]]. The idea that it's merely a legend or hoax is far less appealing.

===The Plesiosaur===
[[Plesiosaur]] is actually a broad term for extinct marine [[reptiles]] with long necks and flippers, but no one knows what type of plesiosaur the Loch Ness monster might be. The elasmosaur, one of the largest of the plesiosaurs, is the considered to be the best candidate of those animals. There are others that also fit the description.

The infamous photographs taken by Robert H. Rines fit the plesiosaur theory, but with their confirmation as hoaxes they cannot be used as evidence. Plesiosaurs are generally believed to have died off approximately 70 million years ago, and while the survival of ''Coelocanth'' gives hope to cryptozoologists, the difficulties of a large, air-breathing reptile never being decisively spotted seem to speak against the possibility of a surviving plesiosaur. In addition, especially for as large a creature as a plesiosaur, the relative dearth of fish in Loch Ness would speak against the capability for supporting an isolated population of large animals.

Besides the hoax photograph, the plesiosaur theory has other problems. Loch Ness was created by glaciation, and the plesiosaur fossil evidence suggests that they lived in warm shallow seas. If Nessie was a plesiosaur, it would mean that a breeding population of cold-blooded reptiles survived for millions of years past the last evidence of their existence, swam in to the retreating cold glacial waters surrounding Scotland, and became trapped in the loch.<ref>http://www.loch-ness.org/candidates.html</ref>

===The Eel===
Probably the most scientifically plausible theory is that the Loch Ness monster could be an eel. Eels fit the hump description much better than the plesiosaur, but one of its faults is that the monster often sticks its head up out of the water, a characteristic not usually attributed to the eel. Another is that no eel has been found that reaches the alleged length of the Loch Ness monster. The largest known eel, the conger eel, reaches about 10 feet long and about 250 to 350 pounds.

===The Zeuglodon===
The [[zeuglodon]], or [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender, fairly serpentine whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but a few could conceivably have survived to today. The alleged monster of Okanagan, referred to as Ogopogo, also seems to be this sort of creature. The zeuglodon may actually be too large however; they grew to over 70 feet in length, yet tales of the size of the Loch Ness monster do not seem to exceed around 50 feet in length. It also shares one of the problems that the eel has; it doesn't have a long neck to stick out of the water.

==Other explanations==

===Trees===
The most likely explanation for many of the sightings was described in [[New Scientist]] as a rotting tree. As sunken trees rot they release a gas that could rise to the top of the surface, the trunk and branches of such trees resemble what many of the sightings claim to see. <ref>“The Loch Ness Saga,” by Dr. Maurice Burton, New Scientist, June 24, 1982, p. 872; July 1, 1982, pp. 41-42; July 8, 1982, pp. 112-113.</ref>

===Boat wakes===
Due to the shape of the lake, boat wakes in can create large standing waves that appear to rise above the lake. These elongated shapes might explain many of the sightings. <ref>http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/research/staff/s-araya/currents.htm#Internal%20progressive%20waves</ref>

==History of alleged Sightings==
What may be the first sighting of the Loch Ness monster was in 565 AD by the missionary [[Saint Columba]], who was visiting [[Scotland]] to spread the [[Gospel]]. He needed to cross the loch, so one of his followers swam out in the water to reach their boat, which had not been tied properly and had floated away from shore. Then a large creature arose from the water and seemed that it was going to devour the man. Saint Columba ordered the rest of his followers to be quiet, and in the name of [[Jesus]] rebuked the monster. The creature drew back "as if pulled by ropes" and the man was left unharmed.

The modern history of Nessie began in 1933 when a new road was completed along the northern shore of the Loch, providing easy access to unobstructed views of the water. Soon after this, a couple spotted an "enormous animal" in the Loch. The ''Inverness Courier'' wrote up their sighting, describing what they saw as a "monster;" intense media interest followed; and thus was born the modern legend of the Loch Ness Monster.

On November 12, 1933, Hugh Gray was walking back from [[church]] when he saw an "object of considerable dimensions—making a big splash with spray on the surface" of the Loch. Luckily he had his [[camera]] with him, so he began taking pictures. Only one of the pictures showed anything. Nessie believers hailed it as the first photographic evidence of the monster. Skeptics, however, dismissed it as a blurry mess that doesn't show anything at all

On April 19, 1934, Colonel Robert Wilson, a surgeon, was driving along the north shore of the Loch early in the morning when he noticed something large moving in the water, so he stopped and took a picture of it. At least, that was his story. For the next sixty years this picture was regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence of Nessie's existence and was known as the Surgeon's Photo. It wasn't until 1994 that the full truth came out. What Wilson had taken a picture of was not the Loch Ness Monster. It was a toy [[dinosaur]]'s head attached to a toy [[submarine]] . Moreover, Wilson hadn't even taken the infamous photograph. He had simply been the frontman for an elaborate [[hoax]].

On May 31, 2007, a video was released that is purportedly Nessie<ref>http://www.nbc10.com/news/13424766/detail.html</ref>.

===Other Scottish Monsters===
There is another creature reputed to be living in Loch Morar.<ref>http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm</ref> It may be a close relative of the monster in Loch Ness. The Scottish parliament has recently initiated an investigation to determine if a breeding program could be established.

Whatever the Loch Ness monster may be, nearly all scientists are still unconvinced of its existence.

==References==
*http://www.cryptozoology.com/
*http://www.nessie.co.uk/
*http://www.britishcongerclub.org.uk/
*http://www.nbc10.com/news/13424766/detail.html
*http://www.museumofhoaxes.com
*http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm

[[Category:Scottish Flora and Fauna]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]
[[Category:Cryptids]]

Talk:Loch Ness Monster

2007-06-01T19:35:28Z

MyaR:

Loch Ness Monster

2007-06-01T19:23:41Z

MyaR: adding new nessie sighting

The '''Loch Ness monster''', also known as Nessie, is a well known [[cryptid]] claimed to live in [[Loch Ness]], a large lake in Scotland. Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported.

==Theories==

There are numerous theories to explain the reported sightings of the monster,
but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Nessie enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]]. The idea that it's merely a legend or hoax is far less appealing.

===The Plesiosaur===
[[Plesiosaur]] is actually a broad term for extinct marine [[reptiles]] with long necks and flippers, but no one knows what type of plesiosaur the Loch Ness monster might be. The elasmosaur, one of the largest of the plesiosaurs, is the considered to be the best candidate of those animals. There are others that also fit the description.

The infamous photographs taken by Robert H. Rines fit the plesiosaur theory, but with their confirmation as hoaxes they cannot be used as evidence. Plesiosaurs are generally believed to have died off approximately 70 million years ago, and while the survival of ''Coelocanth'' gives hope to cryptozoologists, the difficulties of a large, air-breathing reptile never being decisively spotted seem to speak against the possibility of a surviving plesiosaur. In addition, especially for as large a creature as a plesiosaur, the relative dearth of fish in Loch Ness would speak against the capability for supporting an isolated population of large animals.

Besides the hoax photograph, the plesiosaur theory has other problems. Loch Ness was created by glaciation, and the plesiosaur fossil evidence suggests that they lived in warm shallow seas. If Nessie was a plesiosaur, it would mean that a breeding population of cold-blooded reptiles survived for millions of years past the last evidence of their existence, swam in to the retreating cold glacial waters surrounding Scotland, and became trapped in the loch.<ref>http://www.loch-ness.org/candidates.html</ref>

===The Eel===
Probably the most scientifically plausible theory is that the Loch Ness monster could be an eel. Eels fit the hump description much better than the plesiosaur, but one of its faults is that the monster often sticks its head up out of the water, a characteristic not usually attributed to the eel. Another is that no eel has been found that reaches the alleged length of the Loch Ness monster. The largest known eel, the conger eel, reaches about 10 feet long and about 250 to 350 pounds.

===The Zeuglodon===
The [[zeuglodon]], or [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender, fairly serpentine whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but a few could conceivably have survived to today. The alleged monster of Okanagan, referred to as Ogopogo, also seems to be this sort of creature. The zeuglodon may actually be too large however; they grew to over 70 feet in length, yet tales of the size of the Loch Ness monster do not seem to exceed around 50 feet in length. It also shares one of the problems that the eel has; it doesn't have a long neck to stick out of the water.

==Other explanations==

===Trees===
The most likely explanation for many of the sightings was described in [[New Scientist]] as a rotting tree. As sunken trees rot they release a gas that could rise to the top of the surface, the trunk and branches of such trees resemble what many of the sightings claim to see. <ref>“The Loch Ness Saga,” by Dr. Maurice Burton, New Scientist, June 24, 1982, p. 872; July 1, 1982, pp. 41-42; July 8, 1982, pp. 112-113.</ref>

===Boat wakes===
Due to the shape of the lake, boat wakes in can create large standing waves that appear to rise above the lake. These elongated shapes might explain many of the sightings. <ref>http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/research/staff/s-araya/currents.htm#Internal%20progressive%20waves</ref>

==History of alleged Sightings==
What may be the first sighting of the Loch Ness monster was in 565 AD by the missionary [[Saint Columba]], who was visiting [[Scotland]] to spread the [[Gospel]]. He needed to cross the loch, so one of his followers swam out in the water to reach their boat, which had not been tied properly and had floated away from shore. Then a large creature arose from the water and seemed that it was going to devour the man. Saint Columba ordered the rest of his followers to be quiet, and in the name of [[Jesus]] rebuked the monster. The creature drew back "as if pulled by ropes" and the man was left unharmed.

The modern history of Nessie began in 1933 when a new road was completed along the northern shore of the Loch, providing easy access to unobstructed views of the water. Soon after this, a couple spotted an "enormous animal" in the Loch. The ''Inverness Courier'' wrote up their sighting, describing what they saw as a "monster;" intense media interest followed; and thus was born the modern legend of the Loch Ness Monster.

On November 12, 1933, Hugh Gray was walking back from [[church]] when he saw an "object of considerable dimensions—making a big splash with spray on the surface" of the Loch. Luckily he had his [[camera]] with him, so he began taking pictures. Only one of the pictures showed anything. Nessie believers hailed it as the first photographic evidence of the monster. Skeptics, however, dismissed it as a blurry mess that doesn't show anything at all

On April 19, 1934, Colonel Robert Wilson, a surgeon, was driving along the north shore of the Loch early in the morning when he noticed something large moving in the water, so he stopped and took a picture of it. At least, that was his story. For the next sixty years this picture was regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence of Nessie's existence and was known as the Surgeon's Photo. It wasn't until 1994 that the full truth came out. What Wilson had taken a picture of was not the Loch Ness Monster. It was a toy [[dinosaur]]'s head attached to a toy [[submarine]] . Moreover, Wilson hadn't even taken the infamous photograph. He had simply been the frontman for an elaborate [[hoax]].

On May 31, 2007, a video was released that is purportedly Nessie<ref>http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/13424766/detail.html</ref>.

===Other Scottish Monsters===
There is another creature reputed to be living in Loch Morar.<ref>http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm</ref> It may be a close relative of the monster in Loch Ness. The Scottish parliament has recently initiated an investigation to determine if a breeding program could be established.

Whatever the Loch Ness monster may be, nearly all scientists are still unconvinced of its existence.

==References==
*http://www.cryptozoology.com/
*http://www.nessie.co.uk/
*http://www.britishcongerclub.org.uk/
*http://www.museumofhoaxes.com
*http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm

[[Category:Scottish Flora and Fauna]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]
[[Category:Cryptids]]

Talk:Breast cancer

2007-04-10T21:33:37Z

MyaR:

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

Talk:Breast cancer

2007-04-10T21:21:20Z

MyaR:

Talk:Breast cancer

2007-04-10T21:20:19Z

MyaR:

Talk:James Maxwell

2007-04-10T20:43:56Z

MyaR:

== Evolution comments by a physist? ==

What does the beliefs of a person who studied physics and atomic structure have to do with biology? These are about as distinct disciplines as computer science and law... and I know that my background in CS doesn't give me any insight into the goings on of the courts. Maybe if he was a biologist it would be noteworthy, but what authority does he have to state opinion that should be respected on biology? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Well, if that's your approach, then what authority did Darwin have to comment on evolution either???

: Comments by anthropologists are self-serving. We also want to know what bright people have to say from their independent vantage points.

: More generally, and this hardly seems necessary to repeat, don't delete facts from this website for liberal reasons not in our [[rules]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, your position is absurd. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The fact that some editors here are obsessed with the theory of evolution seems to have affected their ability to see clearly. Maxwell was a physicist. His expertise was in physics. Should the article on the Wright Brothers include their views on evolution? Maybe every biographical page should contain that person's views on evolution (except for anthropologists!). That is what follows from your logic. Frankly, I suspect that if Maxwell were alive today he would feel a little sheepish about his views on evolution (which, in fairness to him, were expressed well over 100 years ago). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. I suspect your comment above questioning Darwin's authority to comment on evolution might garner this site a couple of links from other sites (but not the good kind). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::P.P.S. You refer to deleting information for "liberal reasons". I stated my reasons clearly when I made the deletion. Exactly what is it that makes those reasons liberal? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You have deleted this factual information ''twice'' now. This should justify blocking your account. But I won't do that, and will give you the benefit of the doubt.

::: James Maxwell was an eminent English scientist, and far smarter than Charles Darwin. Let the reader know Maxwell's views on evolution, and let the reader decide. Do not engage in liberal censorship of conservative facts here. This is not Wikipedia. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have moved your comments to where they belong chronologically. You will see that this highlights the fact that you ignored my question about why my edit was "liberal". Indeed you make the same unfounded assertion again!

:::: Your assertion that James Maxwell was "far smarter than Charles Darwin" sounds shrill and somewhat desperate. Whether he was smarter or not is irrelevant. He was a physicist and biology was not his area of expertise. Information must not only be factual, it must be relevant. If it is not relevant it amounts to no more than gossip. As you are aware the Conservapedia rules prohibit gossip. I will remove it unless you can provide a LOGICAL reason why it should remain.

:::: Finally, I do not appreciate you threatening me. I only removed the information a second time after receiving no response to my post above. I could equally say that you have reverted two of my edits. Are you suggesting there something special about your edits? Are we lowly editors forbidden to touch anything that you do? I didn't see that in the rules. Could you please advise at your earliest convenience. If it is a rule I don't want to transgress it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It's an interesting fact, so no reason to remove it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: It is gossip-esque. It is not relevant to a physicist. It is unsourced. If it was and interesting point and thus relevant to a biography in general, it should be attached to every biography. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, well, Horace, perfect logic. If one does not receive a response, within the specified time period ''set by you'', one is allowed to proceed! I would love that for driving, since I regularly speed. Maybe if I asked for an exemption, and didn't receive an answer in, say, 24 hours, I should be allowed to without penalty! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not specify a time period but as we appeared to be discussing the matter and he did not respond I made the assumption that I had convinced him of his error. Do you have anything to say on the substantive issue? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Lots. But Horace, only you and a few others see the need to try and convince a man what he believes in is false. That is presumptuous and rude beyond belief. It is also illogical. You might as well be spitting into the wind. And, you know it. So, it all goes back to motive. What is yours? We will all wait for the Students to decide, as this place belongs to the Students and Andy. Any decisions they make are the "right" ones, because this place is theirs, not ours. If we dislike their decisions, each of us has to decide, based upon individual conscience, if we can support and participate based upon those decisions, whatever they might be. In the meantime, howling at the wind, beating on the door, is only distracting and disruptive, I submit. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: TK, could you please elaborate on the importance of this passage in the article and how a physicist's views on biology are relevant? If they are relevant, should that be part of ''every'' biography that appears on this site? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: So, is there ''any'' reason why it is there? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

Conservapedia does not censor non-gossipy facts of interest to users. Go to Wikipedia for that kind of censorship. Maxwell's views on evolution are ''not'' gossip. We won't be seeing that in the National Enquirer.

The liberal desire to censor this fact cannot prevail here. Maxwell was a brilliant scientist and a fellow Englishman of Darwin. Evolutionists cite the views of scientists in support of evolution (e.g., National Academy of Science), and it is certainly fair game to mention the views of scientists against evolution. And, yes, Maxwell was far smarter than Darwin. It's not "desperate" to state the obvious on a talk page. Just look at how they did in school, and where they ended up after school.

There are fundamental differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia. Including this fact about Maxwell's views illustrates that difference. We let the reader decide, and we do not censor this information here. Wikipedia will welcome those who prefer an environment that censors this information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:WHY IS IT A "LIBERAL DESIRE TO CENSOR"? I'm sorry to shout but I have asked several times and you have just ignored the question. I think I put my position pretty clearly and it has nothing to do with political ideology.

:Regretably you, however, appear to have the attitude that this factlette about Maxwell is of some significance because it promotes your worldview. That is not a legitimate reason for its inclusion. I am sure I have read somewhere here that you are some sort of lawyer. I would have thought that issues of relevance would be second nature to you.

:If you tell me that it is Conservapedia's policy to include reference to evolution in every biographical entry then (whilst I will regard it as bizarre) I will comply. But I will not think it a good policy because it is not scholarly.

:But, if that is not the policy then, in an entry of this length on one of the world's greatest physicists I regard the reference to his views on evolution as just totally out of place. I also regard your suggestion that I am seeking to sensor your views as highly ironic having regard to the well known goings-on around here (including, but not limited to, your threat to me above).

:I am not interested in engaging in an edit war. The problem is that I cannot help but see this matter as being driven by your desire to promote your own worldview overriding your desire for a scholarly article. I would be delighted if you could point out the error in my assessment of the situation. I have a genuine wish to see the best quality entries on this site. I am of the view that the inclusion of Maxwell's views on evolution merely confirm in the minds of a substantial number of readers that scholarship takes a back seat to ideology here. And I regret to say, I think that at the moment they are probably right. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 03:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In any case it appears that the assertion that Maxwell rejected Darwin's evolution is incorrect. See [http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/MaxwellMoleculesAndEvolution.html here].

:: Accordingly, I have removed the reference. I would be happy to discuss the matter further if you would like to do so but the article referred to above seems pretty clear and comprehensive. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 17:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You have again reverted my edit without any explanation whatsoever.

::: Did you read the article referred to above at all?

::: Did you consider explaining your action?

::: Have you just decided that you don't care about facts at all?

::: I really am genuinely mystified. How do you explain your behaviour to yourself? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: Horace, Maxwell rejected evolution. I've added the quote. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. Good Easter to you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The quote isn't about animal evolution (and thus Darwin's theory) at all; he's making an argument that molecules can't evolve, a completely separate matter. ==[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's a new one ... that the "theory of evolution" doesn't refer to Darwin's theory? Even when spoken by Maxwell in 1873, when everyone was talking about Darwin? People may disagree with Maxwell's view, but there's no doubting that he rejected the theory of evolution. And please don't say this is "quote mining". See [[talk.origins]] terminology.

::: A good Easter to you, Jtl.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: When used without qualification in the late 20th and early 21st century, the "theory of evolution" refers to Darwin's theory (as modified), yes. Possibly so in 1873 as well; I don't know and don't make any claim to. What's important is that it's clear that that ''in this quote'', it does not. "No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules"; simply by saying "no theory of evolution", Maxwell is suggesting there can be multiple different theories of evolution accounting for different things; otherwise he would have said "the theory of evolution". But more importantly, he continues to qualify what kind of theory he's talking about here: one which might attempt to "account for the similarity of molecules". If he's referring to Darwin's theory, then he's saying the blindingly obvious: Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't account for the similarity of molecules; that's correct, but not interesting. Darwin's theory doesn't attempt to account for that similarity.
:;:: I don't think the question of whether this is quote mining is a necessary one to deal with here. Taken solely on its own terms, this quote is clearly not speaking about Darwin's theory of biological evolution.
:::: A good Easter to you, as well. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 22:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== On Maxwell and Evolution ==

From http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/MaxwellMoleculesAndEvolution.html

: No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity ''of molecules'', for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction.

: None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural.

The only writing that I can find by James Maxwell on evolution is this poem[http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/molecular-evolution/]
:At quite uncertain times and places,
:The atoms left their heavenly path,
:And by fortuitous embraces,
:Engendered all that being hath.
:And though they seem to cling together,
:And form "associations" here,
:Yet, soon or late, they burst their tether,
:And through the depths of space career.

:So we who sat, oppressed with science,
:As British asses, wise and grave,
:Are now transformed to wild Red Lions,
:As round our prey we ramp and rave.
:Thus, by a swift metamorphosis,
:Wisdom turns wit, and science joke,
:Nonsense is incense to our noses,
:For when Red Lions speak, they smoke.

:Hail, Nonsense! dry nurse of Red Lions,
:From thee the wise their wisdom learn,
:From thee they cull those truths of science,
:Which into thee again they turn.
:What combinations of ideas,
:Nonsense alone can wisely form!
:What sage has half the power that she has,
:To take the towers of Truth by storm?

:Yield, then, ye rules of rigid reason!
:Dissolve, thou too, too solid sense!
:Melt into nonsense for a season,
:Then in some nobler form condense.
:Soon, all too soon, the chilly morning,
:This flow of soul will crystallize,
:Then those who Nonsense now are scorning,
:May learn, too late, where wisdom lies.

As such, I am changing the sentence on the article page from
: Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution of fellow Englishman Charles Darwin.
to read
: Maxwell did not believe that the theory of evolution had any application to molecules and atoms.

If anyone wishes to change it to something else, I strongly suggest that they have a citation of something written by Maxwell that applies to the particular type of evolution in question (if it is about biology, then about biology - Darwin didn't make any claim that molecules had any application to his work in the Origin of Species).
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

----
It took me less than 15 minutes to find this:

In the heavens we discover by their light, and by their light alone, stars so distant from each other that no
material thing can ever have passed from one to another; [359] and yet this light, which is to us the sole evidence
of the existence of these distant worlds, tells us also that each of them is built up of molecules of the same kinds as
those which we find on earth. A molecule of hydrogen, for example, whether in Sirius or in Arcturus, executes its
vibrations in precisely the same time.
Each molecule therefore throughout the universe bears impressed upon it the stamp of a metric system as
distinctly as does the metre of the Archives at Paris, or the double royal cubit of the temple of Karnac.
No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily
implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction.
None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in
the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the
identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural.
On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others [http://www.sonnetusa.com/bio/maxbio.pdf]

So does this mean he favored the [[Theory of evolution]], opposed it, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: It means that he had no opinion on biological theory of evolution. He just said it had no application to molecules. There is no 'higher' or 'lower' form of a molecule. While they may combine and break apart, this is not evolution any more than the changing state of a three ball billiards game is evolution. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I read the quote above as (1) being an opinion on the biological theory of evolution and (2) a repudiation of that theory. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It still reads to me as making no explicit claim, one way or another, as to biological evolution. If anything, it's implicitely contrasting molecules, which don't have descent-with-modification and thus can't have a theory of evolution, with things which do have "continuous change", "growth and decay" and "generation or destruction", and thus might have theories of evolution. Without anything more explicit, I'd be disinclined to come to any conclusion firm enough to include in the article, but it sure sounds to me like he's at least open to the possibility of biological evolution. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 13:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== More from Maxwell ==

On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent. Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop,—not that Science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she cannot take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together. But in tracing back the history of matter, Science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and, on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural. Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limits of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created. (Page 176)

== Creationist? ==
[[Creationism]] currently defines creationism as the "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." Assuming a 'creationist' is someone who believes in and/or espouses 'creationism' under this definition, then no, I don't think it's proper (from these quotations) to conclude that Maxwell was a creationist. It does seem likely that he believed in a creator of some sort who created the molecules, but that's a far cry from the "literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.". -- [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Very good point. It would be quite odd to see some of the well known modern atheist/pantheist scientists get listed as both atheist and creationist. The category has been removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
'''That's a new one ... that the "theory of evolution" doesn't refer to Darwin's theory? Even when spoken by Maxwell in 1873, when everyone was talking about Darwin? People may disagree with Maxwell's view, but there's no doubting that he rejected the theory of evolution. And please don't say this is "quote mining". See talk.origins terminology.'''
A good Easter to you, Jtl.--Aschlafly 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: <blockquote> When used without qualification in the late 20th and early 21st century, the "theory of evolution" refers to Darwin's theory (as modified), yes. Possibly so in 1873 as well; I don't know and don't make any claim to. What's important is that it's clear that that in this quote, it does not. "No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules"; simply by saying "no theory of evolution", Maxwell is suggesting there can be multiple different theories of evolution accounting for different things; otherwise he would have said "the theory of evolution". But more importantly, he continues to qualify what kind of theory he's talking about here: one which might attempt to "account for the similarity of molecules". If he's referring to Darwin's theory, then he's saying the blindingly obvious: Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't account for the similarity of molecules; that's correct, but not interesting. Darwin's theory doesn't attempt to account for that similarity.
I don't think the question of whether this is quote mining is a necessary one to deal with here. Taken solely on its own terms, this quote is clearly not speaking about Darwin's theory of biological evolution.
A good Easter to you, as well. --Jtl 22:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)</blockquote>
:: Ooh, this is fun. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Molecules have nothing to do with the Origin of Species. That is what Darwin put forward. Biological evolution - the power of nature to select traits that allows the species to flourish. Maxwell said that since all molecules are equal and there is no 'better' molecule, evolution has no place in physics. It is not a refutation of biological evolution. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the mean time, can you please cite any writing by Maxwell that suggested that believed in creation as specified in the Bible. Until then, the bit about being a Creationist is unsourced and suspect. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I was just taking my cue from Andy, Mtur. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, Maxwell meant what he said. Darwin's theory of evolution was the talk of the day in England. Maxwell never, ever endorsed Darwin's theory, despite the likelihood of intense liberal pressure to do so. It's farfetched, almost comical, to suggest that Maxwell was not talking about Darwin's theory of evolution in 1873 when he referred to the "theory of evolution."

: This is Conservapedia, and we don't twist and contort and censor quotes to satisfy a liberal desire. Maxwell's quote and opposition to the theory of evolution cannot seriously be refuted. We'll let the reader the decide, and we're not going to censor this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm fine with leaving the quote on the page, without the claim that he was talking about biological evolution. If he's going to be classified as a 'creationist', though, we need either a definition of creationist other than 'someone who believes in the Biblical creation story' or a much different quote. All that said, I still maintain that the quote is very clearly not talking about Darwin's theory of biological evoution. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''This is Conservapedia, and we don't twist and contort and censor quotes to satisfy a liberal desire. Maxwell's quote and opposition to the theory of evolution cannot seriously be refuted. We'll let the reader the decide, and we're not going to censor this.'''

::: I didn't twist, contort, remove or censor the quote. I didn't modify any part of the article Andy had contributed to or (so far as I can tell) commented on. I removed the classification claiming that Maxwell as a creationist. Although it's not defined here, I assume a creationist is someone who believes in [[creationism]], which ''is'' defined here: "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." Nothing in the quote speaks to Biblical literalism of any sort, nor has any other evidence been offered despite repeated requests for it. I think the reversion and the protection are wholly inappropriate. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: In his day, many people tried to apply the ideas of biological evolution to other disciplines. You had Social Darwinism as an example of this. The right or wrongness of Social Darwinism has no application to biological evolution. Some suggested that molecules evolved too - Maxwell is saying that this is not the case. This is again, not a commentary on biological evolution. If anything is to be said, it should be "James Maxwell did not belief that the theory of evolution could be applied to molecules." In this context, it is a rather boring statement and does not have any informational value. I still cannot find any indication that Maxwell was a creationist - any citations showing that be did belief in the literal truth of the Bible would be useful for disputing this. Until then, the category should not be applied to Maxwell. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Category==
''Moved from user talk:Ed Poor''

Could you look at the talk page for [[James Maxwell]] and address if the creationist category is applicable? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think Andy already did. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I see that much has gone on on the Maxwell page in my absence. Could you do me a favour? I see that Maxwell's quote is allowed to speak for itself, which is not a bad solution. The only problem is the link within the quote to the Theory of Evolution page. That link means that the quote is not really allowed to speak for itself at all. The whole dispute was over the meaning of the phrase "theory of evolution". By linking it you have effectively changed the quote and nominated a particular meaning. Could you remove the link? I also suggest that the creationist category be removed in light of the way the discussion has gone (but, baby steps I suppose). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Done. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Maxwell&diff=96387&oldid=96110] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ed do ''you'' see any reason why the creationist category should continue to be applied? There don't appear to be any sources indicating a belief in the biblical creation (and its a bit hard to add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> to a category). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't care one way or the other. But see my latest change to [[Creationism]] and then comment here again, would you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Creationism is the belief that the Earth and everything in it was created by [[God]] or some other supreme being.''
::: From this, would it be reasonable to say that ''every'' religious scientist is a creationist? You have Steven Hawking saying "You still have the question: why does the universe bother to exist? If you like, you can define God to be the answer to that question" (Black Holes and Baby Universes, p. 159) and "If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." on page 193 of A Brief History of Time. I would be willing to bet that you would even have a few Indian scientists who believe that Brahma created the world - would you classify them as Creationists? I am certain you wouldn't be able to put the later in any of the groups defined at [[Creationism#Creationist categories]].
::: If you are going to have the category of Creationists, then it should be reserved for individuals who have expressed more than a belief in a creator (and thus a creation) but that they are advocates of creation and write about it or have spoken about it. Otherwise, every single biography here would likely have such a category which would make it nearly identical to the union of "Creationist" and "Atheist", and that isn't that helpful at all. It would make more sense to add the category of Creationist to [[Zach Johnson]], [[St. Augustine]] and [[Martin Luther]] who has said more about creation than James Maxwell has. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sounds like you've got a handle on this. Would you like to take charge of [[:Category:Creationists]] then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Nope. I don't know the where abouts to find out the philosophical leanings of various Christian writers (or Jewish writers? or Islamic writers (they've got essentially the same creation story)?). It is much easier to find the negation - "this person wrote nothing about creation" than trying to dig through everything published about [[Zach Johnson]] to see if he did say anything about creation. This is much better left up to the experts on the various fields who is writing about the person. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*This has already been addressed by Andy. Why is it still being discussed?--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: As it stands, if you are to include James Maxwell as a creationist, you will need to include nearly every single person in the biography category (including Steven Hawking) as a creationist. This makes the category useless for the purpose of finding people who have material that is actually pro-creationism. I cannot find any material written by James Maxwell that shows that he supports a biblical view of the creation of the universe. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::<s>Have you reviewed my change to the intro of [[Creationism]]?</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=96383&oldid=95721 (see diff here)] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I guess Andy disagrees with you, Mtur. This isn't a Democracy on policy issues. You can now run off and report more "chilling" sarcasm. Once something like this has been addressed from the "top" is there a ''good'' reason people will not let it go? I don't consider rendering yet another added category useless as a "good" reason. And Andy has already told all of you directly, there isn't any evidence he wasn't a Creationist. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Is absence of evidence of not a Creationist to be taken as evidence that he was a Creationist? Of the 148 articles (lacking many) in currently in Category:biographies (which is already mentioned as being too large), how many would be labeled with Creationist if that was the case? Would this be any more useful than Category:biographies itself? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Your problem is, mistaking my own opinion for that of Andy's. My job, part of it, is to uphold his thoughts and wishes. Like I keep saying, he addressed this issue. Isn't that the "deciding" factor now? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you seem to have lost sight of the task. Articles should be factual. If Aschlafly is wrong then the article should be changed. Simple as that. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Not in someone else's house, Horace. That would be impolite. I am sure we agree far more than disagree, however since the more Wiki of you continue to act as if this is Wikipedia, or other Wiki's you have used, and treat everyone here like they are "Conservative", there will be little progress, and I assume that is what you, among others, want. Certainly my own experiences show me that. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Anti-evolutionist? ===
Is someone who is against Social Darwinism also an anti-evolutionist? How do you classify an astronomer who accepts stellar evolution but not biological evolution? Maxwell was saying that '''molecules''' do not evolve. That has nothing to do with biology. Any attempt to mix biological evolution and what Maxwell said is misleading. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Creationist? ===
There are no writings of Maxwell that anyone can cite that indicate that Maxwell believed in the creation of the universe as specified in the Bible. Attempting to make a creationist category with the assumption that no evidence to the contrary is enough for inclusion leads to a bloated category that lacks any educational value. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you can't be an anti-evolutionist or a creationist before the two distinctions existed, especially not on incidental evidence. That's like saying that George Washington would've been a Republican, because he loves America & favors a strong army. The correlation is tenuous, and it's just guesswork anyways.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, Andy never said anything about the <nowki>{{category:creationist}}</nowiki> tag. He spoke about the quote, which is still there. Ed Poor added the creationist tag originally and then tried to remove it, but you keep reverting it based on a misunderstanding of what Andy was talking about. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I think whenever any Sysop decides upon his own, or in consultation with users, to reverse any action by another Sysop, there isn't any misunderstanding, other than a total lack of respect. I think whenever any small group of users decides, on their own, to move categories or disambiguation pages, it shows an elitist and disrespectful attitude, as well. Such actions are no different, logically, than the high-handed attitude some of you complain about, in talking of the actions of a "certain Sysop", in my humble opinion. You gentlemen cannot have your cake, and eat it to, you know. Either the little clique of technocrats school the rest of us, or stop your unilateral actions without discussing it fully, and in public. Yes, this means whatever is considered "housekeeping" chores as well. Otherwise we are indeed acting elitist and self-centered, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Well I'm glad your up for a discussion. I really think that Mtur put the position well above under the headings "Anti-evolutionist" and "Creationist". Could you answer those points? I find it difficult to understand why either of those tags ought to apply to Maxwell (and I imagine Maxwell would too). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You finding something difficult to understand, isn't the point. Respect is. So long as there are a few of you who actually believe you are right, and everyone else is totally wrong, and defend your arbitrary unilateral small clique actions that way, how can anyone feel welcome here, anymore than your favorite Sysop makes people feel? My guess is that you guys are so caught up in your own feelings about Conservative, you fail to realize just how unwelcoming and hostile you all appear to be. I can understand that, but I have certainly gone out of my way, more so than other Sysop's have, to arrive at some accommodation. At every turn I have been marginalized. Now, you reap what you've sown. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Look, I am just trying to engage in the core business here. I know you don't much like me and I know why. Could we have a go at sorting this issue out? I was saying that I was glad you were willing to discuss it. Let's discuss it. Why do you say he should be labelled a creationist? (or an anti-evolutionist for that matter)? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I am sorry if you actually think I dislike you, Horace, I am sure Ed or others would tell you that isn't true. You know how to reach me, and until today, could also be reached on IRC, but I am done trying to meet people half way, because I was never afforded that. If some here want to revel in their superior Wiki skills, they can do so. I guess without sharing information it makes them feel superior, because I know whenever I haven't understood their intentions, I was called names, and worse. It is enough for me that Andy says there isn't anything to support ''not'' calling him a Creationist. Since it is his place, and the matter, aside from the disrespect, a small matter in the order of the Univserse, I see no reason to do everything to the article but claim Andy is wrong, to strip it of that possibility. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: TK, I've never dealt with you before. I've never posted about the other sysop you're talking about. I'm not part of any cabal or clique. So, will you please read what I'm saying? Andy never said anything about the category tag. The category tag isn't supported by the facts which have been offered. I believe the editor who initially put it in place now agrees with that. Can you please just deal with the issues at hand? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*The editor who put it in place has told me he now doesn't see a reason to remove it. One man's facts are another man's fiction. I have no "facts" to prove to me Jesus was indeed the son of God. But I believe it as much as I know who my parents are. Maxwell said:

<blockquote>
"No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural."
</blockquote>

It is clear to me, from that sentence, he is saying he doesn't believe in Evolution. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: 1. Where did Ed Poor say that he sees no reason to remove it? 2. conservapedia rules require citations, not just belief. 3. the quote is talking about evolution of molecules, not about biological evolution. 4. even if he doesn't believe in biological evolution, that doesn't make him a creationist under the definition here as it existed when the category was first put in place. 5. the current definition of 'creationism' is so loose as to be almost meaningless, and I expect it to be reverted sometime soon. Even if 1-4 don't convince you, will you at least agree to remove the category if and when the definition of creationism reverts to one claiming a belief in a literal reading of the Bible? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*I clearly think that paragraph is "proof". I will now, since none of you like to cooperate, refer the article on "Creationism" to the Students to decide as well, so will be locking it. As for Ed, ask him. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, I thought discussion of this page belong on this talk page. Was I mistaken about that? I don't see how I've done anything but cooperate. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, I guess you wouldn't, given the number of times Andy and others, including me, said that sentence was "proof" for us. Who are you, any of you, to say your read is more valid? I can see from the insistence of others here, there cannot be any accommodation, because some of you insist only your interpretation is correct. So, I guess the Student Panel will decide. And, until people start to accommodate, and respect religious opinion, they will have to keep on deciding. Doesn't bother me in the least. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I've explained how I read the quote and why I think it means what I think it means. Neither you nor Andy has done so despite repeated requests. In your reading, why does he talk about molecules? And how am I not respecting your religious opinion? Does your religion tell you that Maxwell was a creationist? -- [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*Maxwell clearly states molecules do not change, among other things. I think to an open-minded person, the statement stands on its own, as his rejection of Darwinism/Evolution. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you, now we're getting somewhere. What in the quote leads you to the "among other things"? That is, where does he talk about evolution of anything other than molecules? Or do you believe that Darwinism includes evolution of molecules? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 02:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I wasn't aware that one could pick and choose among what would evolve and what wouldn't, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Sure you can. Darwin's theory and its successors (which have been important enough to generally be what's meant by just "the theory of evolution") have to do with the evolution of living things from earlier living things. You could also have theories of planetary evolution or of political evolution or weather evolution or cultural evolution, for example. By my reading, Maxwell is denying that a valid theory of molecular evolution can be created. So now: what in the quote leads you to the "among other things"? Or do you really believe that Darwin's theory claims to account for how molecules themselves evolve? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 02:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Those were serious questions, TK, and I'd like serious answers. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 13:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*You do understand, Jtl, I am not at your personal call? Forgive me, life sometimes intervenes. I will re-state for you, I think the quote stands on its own, enough to provide an opening, a wide one, big enough to preclude anyone saying he believed in Evolution, and a bigger opening to say he was a Creationist, or maybe even a ID person. I question why you are so intent to ram your ideas through, contrary to what Andy and I have said.......--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you have any indication that he did not believe in biological evolution? He only mentions molecules in the quote. Do you have any work that shows he believed in Creation as specified in the Bible? If not, then almost every single biography should be labeled as a Creationist at which point it becomes meaningless. I would be happy to add 150+ Category:Creationist tags to every single one of the biographies that is not a person who is an atheist. The level of evidence for adding such a tag should be more than just saying "creation" or "a theory of evolution cannot be applied to <nowiki>{something not biological}</nowiki>". Lacking this, it is devoid of any educational value. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Odd, according to whom? Oh, yes, YOU! Andy and I disagree. But I can understand your insistence that you and Jtl are the ones seeing it "correctly", and perhaps you think Andy and I are merely "confused"? Thinking clouded out of some Bible-thumping zeal? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strictly historical disclaimer needed. ==

Which I provided. Reverting. Deal with it. Debate it if you don't like it but don't mindlessly revert/protect.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Oh, Christ TK! Locking because you're too afraid to talk about it? Go ahead and lock your talk page, now, too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Outsider's (in that I haven't participated in either editing this article or previous discussion) -- the 'liberal', 'atheist', 'elitist' (add whatever other labels you'd like) people are trying to ''prevent y'all from looking like fools''. Y'all keep insisting on it, which is why this wiki is doomed to failure. But thanks for providing a lot of hours of entertainment at your willful misreading of anything the slightest bit ambiguous (and that's generous, given the clarity of what Maxwell was talking about in his quote) to support something for which there is no rational support, it being inherently irrational (ie, Creationism, which is a factual claim, not an insult -- belief despite no physical evidence is inherently irrational, in a narrow definition of the term). [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 16:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*No, I locked it because I am against people like you, Ames, stating an absolute: "Deal with it!" It is you, and the others who feel they are "elite" who are going to deal with it. MyaR, looking like fools to Secularists isn't something new to Christians, we have been seen as buffoons often. It says something about other people, who come to a Christian and Conservative site, and keep trying to "save us" from our ways. It doesn't shake our faith. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Um, I think you missed my point -- it's a reading-comprehension foolishness, not a belief one. [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 16:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

One - stop using tab characters. Two - don't lock and avoid debate on an issue in which the facts are clearly in my favor. You cannot disprove the disclaimer I added - "Maxwell was not a biologist, ToE wasn't a full scientific theory at that point" - so why delete them?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:James Maxwell

2007-04-10T20:38:44Z

MyaR:

Sensory Nervous System

2007-04-02T14:58:41Z

MyaR: fixed link

{{stub2}}
The system of nerves which carries information from the body's [[receptors]] to the [[central nervous system]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.

2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Mary Wollstonecraft

2007-04-01T20:53:27Z

MyaR: links, needs lots more info

Mary Wollstonecraft was a philosopher and [[feminism|feminist]] from [[England]]. She suggested that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason. Wollstonecraft is best known for A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.
{{stub}}

Empire State Building

2007-04-01T20:26:14Z

MyaR: link I forgot

The '''Empire State Building''' is a privately owned office building completed in 1931 during the [[Great Depression]] as the tallest building in the world, a distinction it enjoyed for decades until it was surpassed by the [[Sears Tower]] in [[Chicago]]. To this day the Empire State Building is considered by a random poll of Americans to be their favorite piece of American architecture.<ref>http://www.aia.org/press2_template.cfm?pagename=release_020707_150Buildings</ref> It is also considered the most fire-proof building in America.<ref>http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html</ref>

The Empire State Building contains steel reinforced by concrete, making it extremely fire-proof. Deputy Chief Fire Department of New York (F.D.N.Y.) Vincent Dunn (ret.) wrote:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40.

In 1945, a B-25 bomber crashed into the 79 floor of the Empire State Building in heavy fog, killing 14 persons and igniting a fire. But there was only $1 million in damage and the structure of the building easily survived the impact and the resultant fire. Deputy Chief Dunn noted:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:A plane that only weighed 10 tons struck the Empire State Building and the high-octane gasoline fire quickly flamed out after 35 minutes. When the firefighters walked up to the 79 floor most of the fire had dissipated. The Empire State Building in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers. I believe the Empire State Building, and for that matter any other skeleton steel building in New York City, would have withstood the impact and fire of the terrorist’s jet plane better than the WTC towers.

== References ==

<references/>

Empire State Building

2007-04-01T20:25:15Z

MyaR: please read what the citations say -- poll was commissioned by the AIA, and Harris surveyed 1,804 randomly selected Americans, not architects

The '''Empire State Building''' is a privately owned office building completed in 1931 during the [[Great Depression]] as the tallest building in the world, a distinction it enjoyed for decades until it was surpassed by the [[Sears Tower]] in Chicago. To this day the Empire State Building is considered by a random poll of Americans to be their favorite piece of American architecture.<ref>http://www.aia.org/press2_template.cfm?pagename=release_020707_150Buildings</ref> It is also considered the most fire-proof building in America.<ref>http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html</ref>

The Empire State Building contains steel reinforced by concrete, making it extremely fire-proof. Deputy Chief Fire Department of New York (F.D.N.Y.) Vincent Dunn (ret.) wrote:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40.

In 1945, a B-25 bomber crashed into the 79 floor of the Empire State Building in heavy fog, killing 14 persons and igniting a fire. But there was only $1 million in damage and the structure of the building easily survived the impact and the resultant fire. Deputy Chief Dunn noted:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:A plane that only weighted 10 tons struck the Empire State Building and the high-octane gasoline fire quickly flamed out after 35 minutes. When the firefighters walked up to the 79 floor most of the fire had dissipated. The Empire State Building in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers. I believe the Empire State Building, and for that matter any other skeleton steel building in New York City, would have withstood the impact and fire of the terrorist’s jet plane better than the WTC towers.

== References ==

<references/>

Swahili

2007-04-01T16:43:02Z

MyaR: accuracy, citations

{{stub}}
A [[Bantu]] language widely spoken in [[East Africa]]. Swahili is spoken as a first language by about 5 million people, and also serves as a [[lingua franca]] across [[Africa]], where it is spoken by over 30 million people as a second language<ref> http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/september/swahili.html</ref>.

Syntactically, Swahili is largely Verb complex-object<ref> http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/september/swahili.html#stru</ref>. Because Swahili is an [[agglutinative]] language, the subject and verb combine through prefixes and suffixes, creating the Verb complex.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Languages]]

Angola

2007-04-01T16:03:45Z

MyaR: links, grammar. still poorly constructed.

[[Portugal]] suppressed independence movements in its colony of Angola until 1975, when opposition to the continuing expenses caused an overthrow of the government in the mother country of Portugal itself. Once free, three different revolutionary groups fought each other for control of Angola: the (1) communist Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), which grabbed the Angolan capital city of [[Luanda]], (2) the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA), which was supported by [[Zaire]] and the [[United States]], and (3) the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) which was aided by [[South Africa]] and the United States. Peace was not achieved until 1988 and only then did the communist [[Cuba|Cuban]] troops leave. All three groups continue to seek representation in the Angolan government.

Talk:Ancient Terms Z

2007-04-01T16:02:19Z

MyaR: New page: Shouldn't these be "Ancient History Terms"? They're not ancient words, they're referring to things/events that are ancient. ~~~~

Shouldn't these be "Ancient History Terms"? They're not ancient words, they're referring to things/events that are ancient. [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 12:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Tabasco

2007-04-01T16:00:51Z

MyaR: links

Tabasco is currently a state of southern [[Mexico]], and one of the original states of [[Mexico]]. Tabasco was crossed by [[Hernando Cortes]] in 1524.

Elementary proof

2007-04-01T15:59:12Z

MyaR: links, capitalization

The term "elementary proof" or "elementary techniques" in mathematics means [[proof | proofs]] that use only [[real numbers]] or [[real analysis]] rather than the use of [[complex analysis]].<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ElementaryProof.html</ref>

The prime number theorem has long been proven using complex analysis (Riemann's zeta function), but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by [[Paul Erdos]] and [[Atle Selberg]] earned Selberg the highest prize in math, the [[Fields Medal]].

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Benito Juarez

2007-04-01T15:57:31Z

MyaR: link, needs actual info

Bentio Juarez lived from March 21, 1806 to July 18, 1872. A national hero of [[Mexico]], he was president of Mexico 1861–72.
{{stub}}
[[Category: Mexican History]]

Lithuania

2007-04-01T15:55:15Z

MyaR: link

{{stub}}

'''Lithuania''' is one of the Baltic States (the others being [[Latvia]] and [[Estonia]]), located on the [[Baltic Sea]].

Its capital is [[Vilnius]].

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Baltic States]]

Five-Year Plan

2007-04-01T15:54:48Z

MyaR: linky links

Five-Year Plans were government programs to increase agriculture and industry in the communist [[Soviet Union]] and [[China]]. Sometimes the term is also applied to [[India]], though that country was never communist.

[[Category:China]]

Israel Putnam

2007-04-01T15:52:53Z

MyaR: capitalization, links, punctuation

General Israel Putnam (1718-1790) served in both the French and Indian and Revolutionary Wars. During the [[French and Indian War]], Putnam served as a major in the British army. He was captured by the Indians and cruelly tortured. However, he was rescued, and, in 1762, he led a [[Connecticut]] regiment in an unsuccessful expedition against the French in the West Indies. In the [[Revolutionary War]], he was an American patriot, and he participated in the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill.

[[Category:Biographies]]

User:MyaR

2007-04-01T15:12:20Z

MyaR:

So I heard about this place from various media outlets, and thought I'd come find out what it's all about and maybe make some small contributions as I have time.

I've had limited wiki editing experience, so forgive me any formatting snafus in advance, please!

So, who am I and why am I here? I believe that there's a certain realm of human behavior that can be likened to performance art, and this seems like one of those places. It reminds me most strongly of wikiality.com, except the people here actually believe what they're writing. I'm here to make sure that those of us who are amused can follow links, and that bad grammar and punctuation don't obscure the true funniness. It's too easy to take potshots at those. I also edit for facts when I see something that's just wrong, especially about language.

What's my background? Linguistic anthropologist by training (or anthropological linguist, depending on the time of day), language and information technologist by profession.

And yes, I'm a Godless Liberal Heathen. That may seem redundant, but I prefer three-letter initialisms. Three just feels good when you're a native English speaker.

Franz Liszt

2007-04-01T15:02:53Z

MyaR: link, citation needed, stub

'''Franz Liszt''' was a [[Hungary|Hungarian]] composer and pianist, often considered to be the greatest pianist of all time{{fact}}.
{{stub}}

Alexandr Kwasniewski

2007-04-01T14:58:21Z

MyaR: Links are useful! So is more info.

Aleksandr Kwasniewski was the former communist who replaced [[Lech Walesa]] in 1995 as president of [[Poland]].
{{stub}}

[[Category:Biographies]]

Nikita Khrushchev

2007-04-01T14:57:18Z

MyaR: I guess it makes sense that there are a lot of Missing Links here. Or maybe there should be fewer. I'm just not sure.

Nikita Khruschev (1894 - 1971) became dictator over the [[Soviet Union]] when [[Joseph Stalin]] died in 1953. Khruschev denounced Stalin as soon as he died and tried to purge all memory of Stalin (“destalinization”). Khruschev repressed a freedom movement in [[Hungary]] in October 1956 and executed the Hungarian leader [[Imre Nagy]]. Khruschev replaced him with a pro-Soviet puppet. He also ordered the building of the [[Berlin Wall]] and the placement of missiles in [[Cuba]], which led to the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]. In 1960 Khruschev stopped sharing atomic bomb secrets with [[China]], and later there was a little violence along their long border. In 1964 a group led by [[Leonid Brezhnev]] arranged to strip him of power. The group persuaded the [[Politburo]], which governed the Communist Party, to replace Khruschev with Brezhnev. Khruschev then lived out the remainder of his life under the watch of the [[Soviet KGB]]. He managed to smuggle out his memoirs for publication in the West.
{{stub}}
==External link==
*[http://www.richardsorge.com/appendixes/beria/translation.html Gianni Agnelli quoted on Khruschev], 11 May 2003.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence

2007-04-01T14:54:11Z

MyaR: wow, the bias -- 'rations', 'tiers', acronyms

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, given the acronym "NICE", makes decisions on what medical procedures and treatments will be reimbursed in England and Wales. It is an official authority under the National Health Service.

England has a two-tiered medical system, whereby the government rations the care that it reimburses, and delays can be very long. There is another tier for citizens who purchase their own care with their own money. The NICE entity is in charge with limiting and rationing the government-reimbursed care.

In 1946 [[C.S. Lewis]] wrote a novel dentitled ''That Hideous Strength'', in which the arch-evil organization had the same acronym of "NICE", short for the National Institute for Co-operative Experimentation. The coincidence is coincidental, given English-speakers' propensity for creating [[Acronym|acronyms]] that correspond to existing common English words<ref>http://acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=nice&string=exact</ref>.

== References ==
<references/>

YHWH

2007-04-01T14:46:34Z

MyaR: better wording of what little is there

The Hebrew letters often transliterated as YHWH (and rendered as "The Lord") can be pronounced as [[Yahweh]].

{{stub}}

Martin van Buren

2007-04-01T14:44:44Z

MyaR: needs lots more info

{{stub}}Was the 8th president of the [[United States]]. Served as the president from 1837-1841.

Chinampa

2007-04-01T14:33:58Z

MyaR: links, punctuation abuse

'''Chinampa''' were small plots of man-made land used to grow crops on shallow lakes in [[Mexico]]. Chinampa farms first showed up around AD 1150-1350 and eventually surrounded the [[Aztec]] capital, [[Tenochtitlan]].

{{stub}}

Alberta

2007-04-01T14:33:03Z

MyaR: grammar

Alberta is a prairie province in [[Canada]]. Alberta is often considered "the [[Texas]] of Canada" because it is the most conservative.

Alberta has a thriving economy and is a great environment to do business in. It has the best job market in Canada.

Some Albertans feel such a pride and sense of distinction for their province that they have considered Alberta separatism, the idea that Alberta should be it's own sovereign state or a part of the [[United States of America]].

Alberta has its own public radio network,[http://www.ckua.org/"CKUA"]

[[Category:Canada]]

Juneau

2007-04-01T00:16:47Z

MyaR: We like proper capitalization, too. And categories.

Juneau is the capital of and second largest city in [[Alaska]].

[[Category:Cities]]

October Revolution

2007-04-01T00:15:35Z

MyaR: links, links, who likes links

The October Revolution, led by Bolshevik leader [[Vladimir Lenin]], took place in [[Russia]] in 1917. Lenin returned from exile when the tsarist (czarist) rule ended and led the Bolsheviks into power. Lenin then led the [[Soviet Union]] under a system of Marxism-Leninism until his death in 1924.

{{stub}}

Gaelic

2007-04-01T00:13:25Z

MyaR: links, category, needs to be expanded a lot

Gaelic refers to two closely related modern [[Indo-European]] languages spoken on the islands [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]]. Irish Gaelic, usually known as ''Irish'' (or ''Gaeilge'' in its own speech), is spoken on the Island of [[Ireland]], and Scottish Gaelic in the Western [[Highlands of Scotland]] and The [[Hebrides]].

[[Category:Languages]]

Central nervous system

2007-04-01T00:07:06Z

MyaR:

Involved in the regulation of organism behavior.
{{stub}}

Talk:French fries

2007-04-01T00:04:57Z

MyaR:

Any chance of citations with that order of Fries dbpsmith? ;) --[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 13:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:[[Goats]] got it. Good going! You do ''know'' that the "french" in culinary terms does not refer to the country of France but is only a to denote a food (typically a vegetable) that has been fried to the point of caramelization?[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[UserTalk:Cracker|talk]] 01:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the French Wikipedia thinks that the phrase "French fries" might come from Ireland, where, it says, to "french" something means simply to '''cut''' it:
:::En effet, le verbe "to french" signifie "couper" en irlandais. Il s'agit donc de "pommes de terre coupées".[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frite]
::::I'm sticking with the "caramalization" theory based on french toast.
:::::Well, since then I've turned up quite a bunch of conflicting origin stories, which I haven't had time to try to collect or make sense of. There is at least other source saying to "french" means to cut. Belgians do think they originated in Belgium, but it's not clear how widely this is believed elsewhere. I think folks should be careful about saying anything too definite about this. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==False Statement?==
AustinM, what part of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=French_fries&diff=31671&oldid=27716 this] was a "false statement"? They ''are'' called "frites" (short for "pommes frites", which in turn is short for "pommes de terres frites" - fried potatoes) in other languages. The Belgian origin is apparently a somewhat complex issue, but I wouldn't simply call it false, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:I got a little confused. In (half of) Belgium they speak French, so its not true to say they are called frites in other languages (although in German they are allso called pomme frites). HAving done some reading you are righ in saying the french consider them belgian. ANyway you can put it back if you can find the right citations.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

They are called "pommes frites" in Swedish.--[[User:What|What]]

I think this article spent too much time on the history of the name, and then went off on a tangent about different countries changing the names of foods because of war. this article should have more information about the actual food.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 00:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, why not add something to the article about the actual food? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

This is, perhaps, the most awesome article on Conservapedia. [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Age of Aquarius

2007-04-01T00:01:46Z

MyaR: linkety link link link

The Age of Aquarius is a time looked forward to by [[astrology|astrologers]] and others as heralding a [[New Age]] for humanity. It will occur when 'the moon is in the seventh house, and [[Jupiter]] aligns with [[Mars]]', but no one knows exactly when this rare phenomenon is going to occur. According to these beliefs, we are currently in the Age of Pisces, the fish, in other words the age of [[Christianity]] which started in 1 AD. There are twelve ages in all, each lasting for roughly 2000 years or more, and they have the same names as the 12 astrological signs of the year. In comparrison to them, however, they appear to run backwards, because of the [[precession of the equinoxes]]. Hence [[Aquarius]] follows [[Pisces]], and not the other way round.

Trumpet

2007-03-31T23:58:17Z

MyaR:

A trumpet is a common musical instrument in the brass family, which includes the Cornet, French Horn, Trombone, Baritone, Euphonium, and Tuba, among others. It is the highest sounding member of the group because it has the shortest pipe. Sound is made by vibrating the lips against the mouthpiece.

The trumpet is one of the most versatile instruments{{fact}}. It is commonly featured in classical orchestras, military bands, marching bands, jazz bands, as well as for fanfares (Reveille, Taps).

The trumpet's roots go back to ancient Rome, when simple bugles (trumpets with no valves) were used for fanfares. The instrument type had a revival in the Rennaissance, when music became popular once again. Throughout the 16th through 19th centuries the design was refined to include valves and a standardized size.

[[Category:Musical Instrument]]

Trumpet

2007-03-31T23:57:05Z

MyaR:

Trumpet

2007-03-31T23:56:57Z

MyaR: written by a trumpet player, perhaps?

Crab

2007-03-31T23:55:39Z

MyaR: hee, but corrected capitalization

The crab comes in many varieties. Many crabs have shells, which can be ground into powder to make fertilizer. They have claws and legs, just like scorpions. Crabs have small eyes on stalks, which can be used for seeing, along with many other exciting functions. Some crabs can weigh as much as 9 pounds. The largest crabs live in the waters around [[Alaska]].

{{stub2}}

Andrew

2007-03-31T23:54:49Z

MyaR: apostrophe abuse

Andrew was one of [[Jesus]]' twelve disciples.

Andrew lived in [[Bethsaida]] of [[Galilee]]. <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:44&version=31</ref> His brother was [[Peter|Simon Peter]], <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:18;&version=31;</ref> another of Jesus' twelve disciples, and his father was Jona, or John. <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:42;&version=31;</ref> Andrew spent his early years as a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, but when he heard of [[John the Baptist]], he traveled with a band of his countrymen to [[Bethany]], beyond the [[Jordan]], where John was baptizing. <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:28;&version=31;</ref> There, he heard John speak about Jesus, and there, Andrew "followed Him." <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:40;&version=31;</ref> He then went to his brother and saying, "We have found the Messiah" Andrew went with Simon Peter to Christ. <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:41,42;&version=31;</ref>

After this event, Andrew returned to Galilee with Simon, and they resumed their positions as fishermen. There, Jesus found them again and, after telling them He would "make you fishers of men," <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:17;&version=31;</ref> Andrew and Simon dropped their nets and followed Jesus.

No one knows how Andrew died, as it isn't recorded in the Bible or any other book.

==References==
<references/>

Biscuit

2007-03-31T23:53:39Z

MyaR: correction -- scone is not a synonym, which is why Starbucks (American company) sells scones and not biscuits

A biscuit is a small form of bread made with baking powder or baking soda as a leavening agent rather than yeast. When prepared properly, they are soft and flaky. They are similar to [[scone|scones]], but are more savory than sweet. In the UK, the term 'biscuit' means a [[cookie]], which is the older definition. In the French language, "biscuit" is the word for [[cookie]].

[[Image:Biscuits.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Biscuits]]

[[Category:Food and drink]]

Great Britian

2007-03-31T16:46:04Z

MyaR:

Geographically the largest island in the group of islands called the [[British Isles]]. Politically it is often used as a synonym for the [[United Kingdom]].

{{stub}}

Philo

2007-03-31T16:45:32Z

MyaR: we all like links

Philo was a Jewish historian from Alexandria in the first century. He combined [[Judaism]] and [[Greece|Greek]] philosophy.

Embryonic stem cells

2007-03-31T16:42:23Z

MyaR: making sure we can all actually use stuff

Embryonic stem cells are taken from the inner part of a young embryo, also known as a [[blastocyst]]. An embryo reaches the blastocyst stage about 4-5 days after [[fertilization]]. At that point they contain about 50-150 cells.

Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into the three "germ layers": [[ectoderm]], [[endoderm]] and [[mesoderm]]. The 220 types of cells in humans are all based on these germ layers. Some scientists, particularly those having pro-choice political views, claim that embryonic stem cells can differentiate better, and divide into greater numbers, than [[adult stem cells]] can.

But there hasn't yet been a single [[clinical trial]] showing any success from embryonic stem cells. Moreover, even if were possible to provide cures (which is not yet proven), then an approved cure based on embryonic stem cells would be at least ten years away.{{fact}}

Albert Gore, Jr.

2007-03-31T16:39:42Z

MyaR: Redirecting to Al Gore

#REDIRECT [[Al Gore]]

Fred Thompson

2007-03-31T16:38:30Z

MyaR: making conservapedia a little more useful and grammatical for everyone

Fred (Dalton) Thompson was born in Sheffield, [[Alabama]], on August 19, 1942.

He attended public school in [[Lawrenceburg]], [[Tennessee]] and graduated from [[Memphis State University]] in 1964. He received a J.D. degree from [[Vanderbilt University]] in 1967 and was admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1967. He was appointed assistant U.S. attorney 1969-1972; minority counsel, then to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (“[[Watergate Committee]]”) 1973-1974. He became special counsel to Tennessee Governor [[Lamar Alexander]] in 1980, special counsel, [[Senate Committee on Foreign Relations]] 1980-1981, Special counsel to the [[Senate Intelligence Committee]] 1982. He became a member of the Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission 1985-1987, and was elected as a [[Republican]] to the [[United States Senate]] in the November 8, 1994, special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of [[Albert Gore, Jr.]] and was re-elected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003. (from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress).

He was also an actor with more than 30 roles according to the International Movie Database including "The Hunt for Red October" and "Die Hard 2".