Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Creationism

2007-02-27T04:49:54Z

Neurocat:

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Creationism

2007-02-27T04:47:05Z

Neurocat:

Creationism is a term with a variety of meanings. Most generally, creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God.[http://www.creationism.org/english/index.htm]. Creationism can also mean a belief in a creation according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Some forms of creationism (especially the more literal forms) conflict with [[evolution|evolutionary ideas]] while others do not.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp].

== Types of Creationists ==

There are many different types of creationism, and this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the major categories.

*[[Young Earth Creationists]] generally accept a literal or nearly literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, Judaism supported young earth creationism. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp] In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the idea the young earth creationist view. [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm] An example of a Young Earth Creationist ministry today is [[Answers in Genesis]].[http://www.answersingenesis.org/]

*[[Old Earth Creationists]] Agree with the common scientific age of the earth at around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally reconcile the age of the earth with Genesis by positing that the days in Genesis were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood. An example of a major Old Earth Creationist ministry is Reasons to Believe [http://www.reasons.org].

*[[Theistic Evolution]] is the belief that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in physical evolution. In general, theistic evolution accepts the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors.

== Controversial Classification ==

It is unclear if [[Intelligent Design]] amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas. For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is [[Paul Nelson]] who a Young Earth Creationist, while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref> and that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity(possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatable with life. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], a [[US Federal District Judge]] (the lowest level federal judge of a general jurisdiction court) ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]

== Attempts to Criticize Creationism ==
 (1) Some critics of creationism assert that [[St. Augustine of Hippo]] disfavored some literal interpretations of the Bible. For example, they claim that St. Augustine, in his [[On Christian Doctrine]], discussed the multiple layers that Biblical interpreters should sometimes engage in. Under the view of these critics, the seven-day creation in the Book of Genesis should be taken as symbolic.

 In fact, St. Augustine did not reject creation or creationism. He did not propose or accept any view of man as anything other than a creation of God in the image of God, exactly as the Bible says.

 (2) [[Young-earth creationism]], which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young [[moon]] and the Grand Canyon. Opponents repeatedly attempt to censor the sale of publications by the U.S. Parks Service near the Grand Canyon containing differing views of its development.

 (3) Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old.

==Creationism as a Myth==

In the debate of whether Creationism should be classified as scientific truth or myth, the argument usually comes down to whether or not Creationism meets the standards of good scientific theory. Essentially, Creationism must pass the following tests to be considered a valid theory<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/p/scientific.htm</ref>:

:Consistent (internally & externally)

:Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)

:Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)

:Empirically Testable & Falsifiable

:Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments

:Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)

:Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)

:Tentative (admits it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Usually, it is determined that Creationism fails most if not all of these tests, relegating it to the status of "myth"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth</ref>.

==External links ==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp Answers In Genesis - Get Answers]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki]
*[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe]

==References and Footnotes==
<references/>

Creationism

2007-02-27T02:08:35Z

Neurocat:

Creationism is a term with a variety of meanings. Most generally, creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God.[http://www.creationism.org/english/index.htm]. Creationism can also mean a belief in a creation according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Some forms of creationism (especially the more literal forms) conflict with [[evolution|evolutionary ideas]] while others do not.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp].

== Types of Creationists ==

There are many different types of creationism, and this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the major categories.

*[[Young Earth Creationists]] generally accept a literal or nearly literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, Judaism supported young earth creationism. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp] In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the idea the young earth creationist view. [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm] An example of a Young Earth Creationist ministry today is [[Answers in Genesis]].[http://www.answersingenesis.org/]

*[[Old Earth Creationists]] Agree with the common scientific age of the earth at around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally reconcile the age of the earth with Genesis by positing that the days in Genesis were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood. An example of a major Old Earth Creationist ministry is Reasons to Believe [http://www.reasons.org].

*[[Theistic Evolution]] is the belief that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in physical evolution. In general, theistic evolution accepts the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors.

== Controversial Classification ==

It is unclear if [[Intelligent Design]] amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas. For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is [[Paul Nelson]] who a Young Earth Creationist, while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref> and that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity(possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatable with life. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], a [[US Federal District Judge]] (the lowest level federal judge of a general jurisdiction court) ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]

== Attempts to Criticize Creationism ==
 (1) Some critics of creationism assert that [[St. Augustine of Hippo]] disfavored some literal interpretations of the Bible. For example, they claim that St. Augustine, in his [[On Christian Doctrine]], discussed the multiple layers that Biblical interpreters should sometimes engage in. Under the view of these critics, the seven-day creation in the Book of Genesis should be taken as symbolic.

 In fact, St. Augustine did not reject creation or creationism. He did not propose or accept any view of man as anything other than a creation of God in the image of God, exactly as the Bible says.

 (2) [[Young-earth creationism]], which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young [[moon]] and the Grand Canyon. Opponents repeatedly attempt to censor the sale of publications by the U.S. Parks Service near the Grand Canyon containing differing views of its development.

 (3) Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old.

==Scientific Failings of Creationism Myths==

As arguments for Creationism depend solely on faith and not on scientific fact, it is, by definition, impossible to prove any aspect of the Creationist superstitions. Creationism fails all of the following scientific tests<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/p/scientific.htm</ref>:

:Consistent (internally & externally)

:Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)

:Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)

:Empirically Testable & Falsifiable

:Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments

:Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)

:Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)

:Tentative (admits it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For this reason, Creationism is more closely fits the definition of a myth<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth</ref>, as it does not conform to the Scientific Method<ref>http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html</ref>.

==External links ==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp Answers In Genesis - Get Answers]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki]
*[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe]

==References and Footnotes==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-02-26T18:57:38Z

Neurocat:

'''Global warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and to political proposals that follow if the theory is accepted. The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical.

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations.

Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community despite a lack of any conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is no evidence at all.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:
:The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.<ref>Gloval Warming & Evolution[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238739.htm]</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasnt a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earths distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]<ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Faith

2007-02-26T15:54:58Z

Neurocat:

I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref>

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)

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

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]

In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."

::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group.

::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."

::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Re: faith in other religions ==

I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.

Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)

==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==

ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==Unlocking Faith==

I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Talk:Faith

2007-02-24T18:41:17Z

Neurocat:

I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref>

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)

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

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]

In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."

::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group.

::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."

::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Re: faith in other religions ==

I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.

Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)

==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==

ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Boy Scouts of America

2007-02-21T20:39:02Z

Neurocat:

The Boys Scouts of America was founded on February 8, 1910. The movement began two years earlier in England, where Sir Robert Baden-Powell founded it. He had been a hero of the South African Boer Wars.

Today the Boy Scouts are the largest voluntary youth group in the world. Its membership exceeds 25 million.

Baden-Powell wrote in a pamphlet "Scouting & Christianity" (1917): "Scouting is nothing less than applied Christianity."

Here is the Scout Oath:

<blockquote>On my honor, I will do my best: To do my duty to God and my
country, and to obey the Scout Law, To help other people at all
times. To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally
straight.</blockquote>

Many presidents have praised and addressed the Boy Scouts over the years. President Calvin Coolidge said this to a group of Boy Scouts in 1924:

<blockquote>The three fundamentals of scouthood are reverence for nature ... reverence for law ... and reverence for God. It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Doubters do not achieve. ... No man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is part of an unending plan.</blockquote>

In designing the Scouting program, Baden-Powell drew ideas from the Japanese warrior's ''bushido'' code, on educational methods of the African Zulu tribes. on the Victorian "ragged schools" movement, and the educational methods of Montessori.<ref>Baden-Powell, ''Scouting for Boys"[http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0192805479&id=LdtVxcFpWFQC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&ots=j1TxsQhuis&dq=baden-powell+scouting+bushido&sig=6nhFG3I_TD7AB0mP7lzSHebCT7c#PPA44,M1]</ref><ref>[http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-bp.htm Robert Baden-Powell as an Educational Innovator</ref>

==Controversy==

As a result of their strong adherence to traditional Christian morality, the Boy Scouts have come under criticism for their discrimination against children and adults who are homosexual. As stated in a press release from the organization:<ref>http://www.scouting.org/media/press/2002/020206/index.html</ref>

::The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices.

This has led to several high profile lawsuits, such as the one brought by the ACLU of San Diego<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/boy_scouts/boy_scouts_082800.html</ref>, which proposes that the discriminatory practices of the organization should make them ineligible for the use of public funds or public lands.
==References==
<references/>

Talk:Abortion

2007-02-21T15:44:10Z

Neurocat: /* "This is Conservapedia" */

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.

if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Abortion

2007-02-21T15:42:02Z

Neurocat:

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|A human being before birth.]]
The word '''abortion,''' in connection with pregnancy, can be defined as "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> Thus, the word includes miscarriage, but commonly refers to ''induced'' abortion; that is, the intentional performance of a procedure which causes the death of a living organism. Most Christian conservatives regard human life as beginning at conception and consider abortion to be the murder of innocent babies while in the womb of their mother.

Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Prior to 1973 it was illegal, usually criminal, and considered to be serious medical misconduct. The [[The United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are permissible, as a woman's choice, up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb.

==Abortion and Breast Cancer==
The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the controversy around this finding, which suggests that data linking abortion to increased breast cancer risk is not yet conclusive.<ref>http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/abortion.asp</ref> Some of the reasons for the difficulty in verifying these studies include:

:The number of cases observed; a very small number may not be reflective of the general population)
:The type of abortion: induced versus spontaneous (also called miscarriages)
:Accounting for other lifestyle or genetic factors that may influence breast cancer risk
:The amount of time between abortion and breast cancer occurrence
:Data limitations due to the changing legal status of abortion (for example, an American woman’s abortion history may not have been reported before 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion).
:Recall bias (women may not accurately report their reproductive history)
:Emotional and/or socio-political factors

==Political Action Committees==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html</ref>. EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

:providing health information to abortion patients;

:requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and

:providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

The most powerful of the pro-life political action committees is 100% Pro-Life PAC.<ref>http://www.prolifepac.com/</ref> This organization is opposed to abortion being performed in any situation - this includes situations where the life of the mother is at stake, where there woman has been raped, or where the child is a product of incest. Consequently, the make donations only to politicians who promise to work to outlaw abortion in any form, regardless of medical need.

Those who support abortion insist upon terms like "fetus" -- seemingly to minimize the humanity of unborn infants. Biblical references indicate that the person exists in the womb and pro-lifers use the term "unborn babies."

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Faith

2007-02-21T15:00:22Z

Neurocat: /* American Heritage Dictionary */

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref>

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)

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

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]

In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."

::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Faith

2007-02-21T14:57:26Z

Neurocat:

Faith is a uniquely Christian concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. The term lacks a precise definition. In English the word comes from the Latin word "fidere", meaning "to trust".

The concept of faith does not exist in other major religions. While faith is mentioned 229 in the New Testament, faith is mentioned only twice in the Old Testament (KJV). In an English translation of the Koran (Islam), the concept of submission to Allah is mentioned 11 times, but faith in Allah is only mentioned once.

The term "faith" is often used to describe the belief systems of other religions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that in addition to the opinion that the term is uniquely Christian, modern usage of the word "faith" includes many definitions, which are supported by current dictionaries of the English language:<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith</ref>

:1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

:2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

:3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

:4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

:5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

:6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

:7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

:8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom

:9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Anyone who believes in somthing that cannot be factualy proven has faith. This any religion on earth has faith including Atheist. As God or God(s) cannot be proven or disproven, it is an act of faith to believe in them.
----

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

Talk:Faith

2007-02-21T14:48:44Z

Neurocat: /* American Heritage Dictionary */

Abortion

2007-02-21T04:49:56Z

Neurocat:

Talk:Faith

2007-02-21T04:48:30Z

Neurocat: /* American Heritage Dictionary */

Abortion

2007-02-21T04:36:38Z

Neurocat:

The word '''abortion,''' in connection with pregnancy, can be defined as "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> Thus, the word includes miscarriage, but commonly refers to ''induced'' abortion; that is, the intentional performance of a procedure which causes the death of a living organism. Most Christian conservatives regard human life as beginning at conception and consider abortion to be the murder of innocent babies while in the womb of their mother.

Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Prior to 1973 it was illegal, usually criminal, and considered to be serious medical misconduct. The [[The United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are permissible, as a woman's choice, up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb.

The abortion industry is a billion-dollar business in the United States, and both the industry and its allies are among the biggest financial contributors to Democratic Party candidates. One of the largest political contributors to Democratic candidates is Emily's List, which raises money for women candidates who support various aspects of abortion, such as taxpayer funding, and oppose regulations such as parental notification and informed consent.

The overwhelming majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This information must, of course, be weighed against the benefits of abortion - such as saving the life of the mother during dangerous pregnancies, and improving quality of life for those who are unprepared to raise children.

Those who support abortion insist upon terms like "fetus"-- seemingly to minimize the humanity of unborn infants; those against it usually try to stress human element by referring to them as "unborn babies", to generate more sympathy than one might have for a clump of undifferentiated cells.

The movement in the United States which opposes abortion calls itself the "Pro-Life" movement; the movement which supports it labels itself the "Pro-Choice" movement. However, the movement that supports abortion is not "pro-choice" about funding it, but insist on government and insurance funding for abortion without any ability for objectors to opt out. The "Pro-Life" movement, on the other hand, routinely takes positions supporting use of the death penalty, which tends to suggest that they are not so much "Pro-Life" as they are "Pro-Religion." This confusion is furthered by the "Pro-Life" stance against the use of stem cell research, suggesting that the life of a fetus is more valuable than the life of adult humans with a terminal disease.

==References==
<references/>

Abortion

2007-02-21T01:51:06Z

Neurocat:

Faith

2007-02-21T01:41:16Z

Neurocat:

Faith is a concept common to many religions that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. The term lacks a precise definition. In English the word comes from the Latin word "fidere", meaning "to trust".

The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca.

----

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

Faith

2007-02-21T01:36:32Z

Neurocat:

Faith is a concept common to many religions that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. The term lacks a precise definition. In English the word comes from the Latin word "fidere", meaning "to trust".

The concept of faith exists in all other major religions. While faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran (Islam). Faith is also a part of all "old earth" religions, which pre-date most modern belief systems.

----

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

Faith

2007-02-21T01:35:54Z

Neurocat:

Faith concept common to many religions that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. The term lacks a precise definition. In English the word comes from the Latin word "fidere", meaning "to trust".

The concept of faith exists in all other major religions. While faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran (Islam). Faith is also a part of all "old earth" religions, which pre-date most modern belief systems.

----

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