Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Satrap

2007-06-27T22:45:38Z

Oldoligarch:

'''Satraps''' were loyal [[governor]]s established by the [[Persian Empire]] to rule distant lands. They had power to impose [[law]]s and [[tax]]es.

Satraps (Old Persian khšaçapâvâ) were the governors of the satrapies (provinces) of the ancient Achaemenid Empire.

The title satrap is older than the Persian Empire. It is the hellenized form of the word khšaçapâvâ, which in Median means 'protector of the realm' and was used to describe the vassal kings of the Median empire. The Median and Persian kings sent out inspectors called the "Eyes of the King" to control and supervise their satraps.

Satrap

2007-06-27T22:45:17Z

Oldoligarch:

Satrap

2007-06-27T22:43:14Z

Oldoligarch:

Satrap

2007-06-27T22:35:53Z

Oldoligarch:

Satrap

2007-06-27T22:33:30Z

Oldoligarch:

'''Satraps''' were loyal [[governor]]s established by the [[Persian Empire]] to rule distant lands. They had power to impose [[law]]s and [[tax]]es.

Satraps (Old Persian khšaçapâvâ) were the governors of the satrapies (provinces) of the ancient Achaemenid Empire.

The title satrap is older than the Persian Empire. It is the hellenized form of the word khšaçapâvâ, which in Median means 'protector of the realm' and was used to describe the vassal kings of the Median empire. The Median and Persian kings sent out inspectors with the title "eye of the king" to control and supervise their satraps.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Satrap

2007-06-27T22:32:59Z

Oldoligarch:

'''Satraps''' were loyal [[governor]]s established by the [[Persian Empire]] to rule distant lands. They had power to impose [[law]]s and [[tax]]es.

Satraps (Old Persian khšaçapâvâ)were the governors of the satrapies (provinces) of the ancient Achaemenid Empire.

The title satrap is older than the Persian empire. It is the hellenized form of the word khšaçapâvâ, which in Median means 'protector of the realm' and was used to describe the vassal kings of the Median empire. The Median and Persian kings sent out inspectors with the title "eye of the king" to control and supervise their satraps.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Herodotus

2007-06-27T22:25:40Z

Oldoligarch:

Totally inadequate entry

:This is actually quite a large and detailed entry, by present standards hereabouts. It needs a bit of work, certainly, but not as much as many. And thousands of important people and things don't yet have an entry at all. Might I enquire if you personally are planning to do anything about this situation? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Only if the powers that be at Conservapedia.org are serious about having a complete encyclopedia. Is one line plus a quote from the post office sufficient for the "father of history"?

So fix it, [[User:Oldoligarch]]. I don't see what's stopping you. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If you want to see what a good article on Herodotus is go to wikipedia.org. The one here is Mickey Mouse level.

:So fix it, [[User:Oldoligarch]]. I don't see what's stopping you. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Wikipedia article on Herodotus has a clear liberal bias. It's your decision whether you're willing to put up with that sort of thing or not... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I missed the "clear liberal bias" in the Wikipedia article. Perhaps, you could show me exactly where the "liberal bias" is.

*[[ANDFLEF?]] Don't you think that we ought to deal with the imaginary Andflef, who Herodotus married 18 years before he was born?
[[User:Tisdale.david|Tisdale.david]] 17:33, 3 June 2007 (EDT)tisdale.

Thucydides and Polybius did not write sensational histories. Herodotus wrote about the events that took place before he was born, so he had to rely heavily on oral sources.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:25, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Assyrian Empire

2007-06-26T18:19:08Z

Oldoligarch:

Citations? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 03:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The big beneficiary from the collapse of the Assyrian Empire was the Persian Empire. Babylonia did not survive very long after the end of the Assyrian Empire.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 14:19, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Daniel

2007-06-25T14:53:31Z

Oldoligarch:

Hard to believe there is no article on the prophet Daniel.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Make one. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:19, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I'll leave that to an authority on the Old Testament.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Rolling Stones

2007-06-23T23:29:49Z

Oldoligarch:

We should not be including references to Devil-Worshippers like The Rolling Stones on this site. Children surfing here might believe there was something worthwhile about these drug fiends, malingerers and evil-doers, and I strongly urge that we delete this article. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:46, 21 March 2007 (PST).

Perhaps we should also eliminate the article on Elvis Presley and any other musician after John Philip Sousa.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:29, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Daniel

2007-06-23T23:13:56Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Hard to believe there is no article on the prophet Daniel.~~~~

Hard to believe there is no article on the prophet Daniel.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Darius I

2007-06-23T23:12:23Z

Oldoligarch:

Reign not rein. How did Daniel serve?

This article needs to be much bigger.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:12, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cyrus

2007-06-23T23:11:33Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Cyrus needs a much bigger article.~~~~

Cyrus needs a much bigger article.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jan Vermeer

2007-06-23T23:08:06Z

Oldoligarch: New page: It's interesting that Thomas Kinkade gets a bigger article than Jan Vermeer.~~~~

It's interesting that Thomas Kinkade gets a bigger article than Jan Vermeer.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:08, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ivan IV

2007-06-23T15:27:49Z

Oldoligarch:

I don't think Ivan IV was the first czar of Russia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 11:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:See [http://www.mistsofrussia.info/prehistory/pharaohs.php]. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Tsar/id/2047366], [http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:SsukZIWIEpkJ:www.usd322.org/pages/uploaded_files/Czar.ppt+ivan+IV+first+csar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=uk], [http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b2ivanIV.htm] among many others. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:05, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I see.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 11:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Satrap

2007-06-22T14:52:12Z

Oldoligarch:

'''Satraps''' were loyal [[governor]]s established by the [[Persian Empire]] to rule distant lands. They had power to impose [[law]]s and [[tax]]es.

Satraps ruled satrapies, which were provinces of the Persian Empire, for the Great King.

{{stub}}

Satrap

2007-06-22T14:51:37Z

Oldoligarch:

Talk:African Americans

2007-06-20T22:00:58Z

Oldoligarch:

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

:::The term ''African-American'' is described as an example of [[Political correctness]] in that very article.
:::"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" (Genesis 15:13)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 07:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== some political correctnes is important ==

There has to be some political correctness.
Imagine if others would just start to tell about conservapedians "Idiots".
Or what do you think about calling creationistst "Ignorants"?
That would not be political correct, I think. But would it be wronger as you would be when calling african americans "Negroes"?
So better you think about, what you are saying before others call you racists, fundamentalists,.... --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To many blacks, the term 'negro' is at best archaic and condescending, and at worst, a derivative of 'nigger'. We can argue semantics all day, but lets not insult people in an effort not to be politically correct. And 'the other side of town'? Not where I live. [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 15:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The reference to [[political correctness]] on the [[Main Page]] seems to have been removed. Perhaps political correctness is acceptable here after all. Though it doesn't yet seem to extend as far as [[homosexuality]].
::"He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light." (Job 33:28)
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&diff=48204&oldid=48150 here] on 19th March 2007
:::"He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed." (Leviticus 27:33)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Give me a break==

There's a difference between being politically incorrect and being uncouth. Calling them Negroes is just uncouth. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proof==

My addition to this article ("Black people originated as descendants of Cain, along with Asians, Arabs, American Indians, Polynesians and other non-white races") has been proved by Creation Science. Creation Geneticists have found the gene EVL6 in all the races I listed, and EVL6 is traceable back to Cain.

:Uh huh, right. I'd love to see how they managed to trace it back to Cain, assuming you're not just making this all up yourself. Your source would be what?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, he's just making it up. And if he doesn't watch his step, he'll be blocked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Whom did Cain marry?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cain

2007-06-20T21:51:37Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Whom did Cain marry?~~~~

Whom did Cain marry?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:51, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2007-06-20T21:49:04Z

Oldoligarch:

== General Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== On Kant ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Black Sea flood? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This article will be replaced ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 3000 BC? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That's because you don't appreciate how much involvement God has/had "behind the scenes". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

The Article states "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family". One would then assume only the descendents of Noah and his family would be able to pass on the story of the flood.

The flood legends in the folklore of people from around the world can only be referring to the same event if all these people are related no Noah and his family? According to [[Flood Geology]] the flood occured around 2350 B.C some 4357 years ago. When and how did Hawains and Australian Aboriginies, for example, become ''racially'' different to Noah and his family? I think the article should explain how various human poupulations descended from Noah and his family came to look so different to one another.

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

:That is something that should be explained, but not in this article, I think. This is about the historical records of the Flood, and just like Flood Geology is in a separate article, this aspect should be too, although I'm not sure at the moment which article it should be in. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps in the article [[Homo sapiens]]. I'm not too hot on science, you seem to know a lot about these things. Perhaps you could add the stuff to the appropriate article. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, Homo sapiens might be appropriate. Now to find the time, after all the other things on my to-do list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution and a Worldwide Flood: Not mutually exclusive? ==

So, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think that the idea of a worldwide flood would be invalid without accepting evolution in a way similar to how it is presented in schools and books and the internet today.

Here's the deal. Fish live in many different habitats, their survival dependent on several factors including water pH, temperature, and the most important to my idea, salinity. While there are some fish with astoundingly large salt tolerancies, there are others who cannot live except for in a very stable, specific environment, including two well known staples of many American's diets, the catfish and the tuna. These fish would die if they were in an environment with a salinity that was very much different than they are used to, so my point is this. During a worldwide flood, water salinity would be decreased from what it normally is in various parts of the oceans, and it would be increased from that of any freshwater environment. Assuming that what I just said is true, and that evolution is false, we should not have freshwater fish, saltwater fish with low tolerncy for the salinity of their environment being changed.

This clearly isn't true, though, as none of the fish from this particular site (http://fins.actwin.com/species/index.php?t=3&f=1) would exist if not for evolutionary mechanics, presuming, that is, that you should find the idea of a worldwide flood indisputable. Basically, if you believe in the worldwide flood, evolution would kind of go hand in hand.
--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the problem is that what you call "evolution" is not what creationists object to. That is, creationists disagree with claims that there are mechanisms to add new genetic information to creatures, which is required for [[types of evolution|goo-to-you evolution]]. Some adaptations that you call "evolution" are not such mechanisms. With that brief explanation in mind, have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

When do we get to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 15:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Not before you explain how that is relevant to this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:18, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't the flood caused by the melting of the polar icecap, similar to what is happening now? Soon we'll all be under water.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2007-06-20T21:48:43Z

Oldoligarch:

== General Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== On Kant ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Black Sea flood? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This article will be replaced ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 3000 BC? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That's because you don't appreciate how much involvement God has/had "behind the scenes". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

The Article states "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family". One would then assume only the descendents of Noah and his family would be able to pass on the story of the flood.

The flood legends in the folklore of people from around the world can only be referring to the same event if all these people are related no Noah and his family? According to [[Flood Geology]] the flood occured around 2350 B.C some 4357 years ago. When and how did Hawains and Australian Aboriginies, for example, become ''racially'' different to Noah and his family? I think the article should explain how various human poupulations descended from Noah and his family came to look so different to one another.

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

:That is something that should be explained, but not in this article, I think. This is about the historical records of the Flood, and just like Flood Geology is in a separate article, this aspect should be too, although I'm not sure at the moment which article it should be in. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps in the article [[Homo sapiens]]. I'm not too hot on science, you seem to know a lot about these things. Perhaps you could add the stuff to the appropriate article. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, Homo sapiens might be appropriate. Now to find the time, after all the other things on my to-do list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution and a Worldwide Flood: Not mutually exclusive? ==

So, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think that the idea of a worldwide flood would be invalid without accepting evolution in a way similar to how it is presented in schools and books and the internet today.

Here's the deal. Fish live in many different habitats, their survival dependent on several factors including water pH, temperature, and the most important to my idea, salinity. While there are some fish with astoundingly large salt tolerancies, there are others who cannot live except for in a very stable, specific environment, including two well known staples of many American's diets, the catfish and the tuna. These fish would die if they were in an environment with a salinity that was very much different than they are used to, so my point is this. During a worldwide flood, water salinity would be decreased from what it normally is in various parts of the oceans, and it would be increased from that of any freshwater environment. Assuming that what I just said is true, and that evolution is false, we should not have freshwater fish, saltwater fish with low tolerncy for the salinity of their environment being changed.

This clearly isn't true, though, as none of the fish from this particular site (http://fins.actwin.com/species/index.php?t=3&f=1) would exist if not for evolutionary mechanics, presuming, that is, that you should find the idea of a worldwide flood indisputable. Basically, if you believe in the worldwide flood, evolution would kind of go hand in hand.
--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the problem is that what you call "evolution" is not what creationists object to. That is, creationists disagree with claims that there are mechanisms to add new genetic information to creatures, which is required for [[types of evolution|goo-to-you evolution]]. Some adaptations that you call "evolution" are not such mechanisms. With that brief explanation in mind, have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

When do we get to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 15:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Not before you explain how that is relevant to this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:18, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't the flood caused by the melting of the polar icecap, similar to what is happening now? Soon we'll all be ub=nder water.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ivan IV

2007-06-18T18:21:59Z

Oldoligarch: Removing all content from page

Talk:Vice versa

2007-06-15T20:14:08Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Once again, a comedian has written an article for Conservapedia. It has nothing to do with the phrase ''vice versa''.Where does this stuff come from?~~~~

Once again, a comedian has written an article for Conservapedia. It has nothing to do with the phrase ''vice versa''.Where does this stuff come from?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 16:14, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Panama

2007-06-15T20:12:20Z

Oldoligarch:

'''Panama''' is a [[country]] in [[Central America]], just north of [[Colombia]] and just south of [[Honduras]].

Panama holds within its borders the [[Panama Canal]], which is an important route for ships which are traveling from the [[Atlantic]] to the [[Pacific]] ocean (and [[vice versa]]). [[Abortion]] is illegal in Panama.

[[Category:Central American Countries]]

Talk:El Salvador

2007-06-15T17:24:55Z

Oldoligarch:

Wasn't Salvador Allende the former president of Chile who was assassinated in 1973?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 11:08, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
:Yes he was, but why you wouldn't make the correction here is beyond me. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Why would I make the correction? I did not write this article. I am just stating a fact and wondering why people are deliberately putting in false information on these Central American country articles.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 13:24, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

El Salvador is one of only 3 countries in the world where abortion is illegal in all cases? Do you have a cite for this? I'd find it surprising if this wasn't the case in, say, Saudi Arabia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:16, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
: That's a good point. Possibly in Saudi it is not considered neccessary even to have a law about abortion - I will delete the reference until I can corroborate. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:18, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:El Salvador

2007-06-15T15:08:00Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Wasn't Salvador Allende the former president of Chile who was assassinated in 1973?~~~~

Wasn't Salvador Allende the former president of Chile who was assassinated in 1973?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 11:08, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Guatemala

2007-06-15T14:58:16Z

Oldoligarch:

This article is hilarious. Alfio Rubén Basile was an Argentine football player and is now coach of the Argentina national football team.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Guatemala

2007-06-15T14:57:35Z

Oldoligarch: New page: This article is hilarious. Alfio Rubén Basile was an Argentine football player and is now coach of the Argentina national football team.

This article is hilarious. Alfio Rubén Basile was an Argentine football player and is now coach of the Argentina national football team.

Talk:Great Flood

2007-06-14T19:24:04Z

Oldoligarch:

Talk:Allah

2007-06-14T16:24:29Z

Oldoligarch:

Isn't Arabic read right-to-left? Perhaps the article should mention that? I'd do it now but I'm

How is the fact that Arabic is read from right to left relevant to the article on Allah? It should be included in an article on Arabic.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 12:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Allah

2007-06-14T16:23:18Z

Oldoligarch:

Isn't Arabic read right-to-left? Perhaps the article should mention that? I'd do it now but I'm How is the fact that Arabic is read from right to left relevant to the article on Allah? It should be included in an article on Arabic.

Talk:Illegal immigration

2007-06-12T21:46:24Z

Oldoligarch:

Some pretty sweeping statements there. Not all illegals are Mexicans, and many of them do speak some English. Also, many American citizens do not speak English. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Misc ideas I just had==
Seems to me the reason for so much illegal immigration is that it takes upwards of a decade to get citizenship. Maybe we should do something to streamline the process and make it easier to get citizenship? That gets rid of tax-dodging, insuranceless illegals working for less than minimum wage.

Also, I think that forcing schools to teach in two languages is crap, and what we need to do is to build special schools where immigrant children are given one year of intensified English language training, which will prepare them for learning in an English school curriculum. Just put them right where they left off in a normal school once they're done learning English.

Of course, we absolutely wouldn't have any of these problems if Mexico wasn't such a cesspool of subhuman living conditions around the border. Believe me, I've been there, and it's awful. People living in unfinished houses and whatnot.

I used to live in Mexico. They view their north the way we view our south...[[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? ==

Why does the entry for "Guatemalan" redirect to "Illegal Immigration?" I call RACISM! [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 21:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's been deleted, and the user has been warned. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Illegal Immigration in Mexico ==

I used to live in Mexico. They were not kind to the illegals who came there from Central America. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:53, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that some of the illegal immigration hysteria is based on prejudice. In New York City I hear the same things about Asians as about Hispanics. In northern New England I bet they're hysterical about French Canadians coming into the U.S. I have the impression that many people don't make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. As long as the immigrants don't come from Europe, they're all considered illegal.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:46, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:France

2007-06-12T02:04:30Z

Oldoligarch:

== References ==

The references in this article don't seem to be working properly - can somebody fix them?

== Politics ==

Unless you go into a full discussion of France's politics, which could very well happen in the future, I suppose, the statement about France not supporting the invasion of Iraq seems to be a bit irrelevant. Are we going to list every single country's stance on the Iraq war?
-[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 14:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:It is very important to know who is "with us" and who is "against us".</sarcasm> (Seriously: I technically agree, but I'd leave it in so that a politics section can grow around it.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Seriously if you want an unbiased article then one country's (i.e; Americas) opinion on another really does have no place in it... --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 12:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling ==

I made a bunch of fixes to the non-American spellings in this article. Let's keep those double-L's (rivalled) and silent U's (behaviour) out of Conservapedia as per the Commandments.

== War on Terror ==

Why do we find under Germany :

War on Terror

Germany currently contributes troops to the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan, but did not support the invasion of Iraq.

And why it is not showing the same information under France?
See: http://www.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm

Also, the last comment about the French kings after Clovis is showing that the writer of this article has no knowledge of French history.

March 2003-I didn't realize that they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What is your source for this statement?

== Astérix and Obélix ==

Those are not heroes of the french history, but purely fictional characters. So is their story. There was no little chiefdom remaining independent from Rome. [[User:SillyGirl|SillyGirl]] 11:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I entirelly removed the reference. Unless one want to consider, say, "Independence Day" (the movie), as facts (just for comparison). [[User:SingleUse|SingleUse]] 05:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

May I ask who pasted the map of France on top of the article?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 22:04, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Nelson A. Rockfeller

2007-06-08T15:53:00Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Shouldn't this be combined with Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller?~~~~

Shouldn't this be combined with Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 11:53, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ivan IV

2007-06-08T15:48:55Z

Oldoligarch: New page: I don't think Ivan IV was the first czar of Russia.~~~~

I don't think Ivan IV was the first czar of Russia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 11:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-06-07T14:52:23Z

Oldoligarch:

{{unprotected|15:34, 25 March 2007|Ed Poor}}

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-06-06T23:06:54Z

Oldoligarch:

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-06-06T23:06:06Z

Oldoligarch:

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-06-06T22:59:57Z

Oldoligarch:

Talk:Greek language

2007-06-06T19:28:48Z

Oldoligarch:

Perhaps something on Ancient Greek prior to the New Testament might improve this article.

Greek at 8th century B.C. is the earliest literary language? How about Hebrew? Perhaps a definition of literary language (and an explanation of why that is the earliest) would be a needed addition. I also put back in information that was removed on moods and voices without comment. If it's in error please remove it with a comment in the talk as to why it is being removed, but if it was accurate, then it appeared to have a place in the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Ancient Greek is closer to modern Greek than Old English is to modern English. I think it's more like Latin and Italian. The following comment is peculiar: "'common' Greek, the sort of Greek that can be compared to well-spoken illegal immigrants from Central American in the United States. Accented, using slang, etc." It's possible that ''legal'' immigrants from Europe, Asia, and Africa also speak English with an accent. I think koine was more of a simplified standard language than slang. Ancient Greek and Latin are both Indo-European languages and share many cognates and grammatical categories. Ancient Greek also shares many grammatical features and vocabulary with Sanskrit and is closer to Sanskrit than it is to Latin.

Ancient Greek also has an imperative mood.

Talk:Greek language

2007-06-01T15:18:51Z

Oldoligarch:

Talk:Greek language

2007-05-31T20:37:56Z

Oldoligarch:

Perhaps something on Ancient Greek prior to the New Testament might improve this article.

Greek at 8th century B.C. is the earliest literary language? How about Hebrew? Perhaps a definition of literary language (and an explanation of why that is the earliest) would be a needed addition. I also put back in information that was removed on moods and voices without comment. If it's in error please remove it with a comment in the talk as to why it is being removed, but if it was accurate, then it appeared to have a place in the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Ancient Greek is closer to modern Greek than Old English is to modern English. I think it's more like Latin and Italian. The following comment is peculiar: "'common' Greek, the sort of Greek that can be compared to well-spoken illegal immigrants from Central American in the United States. Accented, using slang, etc." It's possible that ''legal'' immigrants from Europe, Asia, and Africa also speak English with an accent. I think koine was more of a simplified standard language than slang. Greek and Ltin are both Indo-European languages and share many cognates and grammatical categories.

Talk:Greek language

2007-05-31T20:30:19Z

Oldoligarch:

Talk:Greek language

2007-05-31T20:24:26Z

Oldoligarch:

Talk:James Brown

2007-05-28T18:07:25Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Not long enough.

Not long enough.

Talk:Bob Marley

2007-05-28T18:06:23Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Not long enough.

Not long enough.

Talk:John Roberts

2007-05-28T17:54:52Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Where's the rest of the article?

Where's the rest of the article?

Talk:Moscow

2007-05-28T17:43:21Z

Oldoligarch: New page: Not long enough

Not long enough

Talk:Jerusalem

2007-05-28T17:42:12Z

Oldoligarch:

I could've sworn Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel.

HAHA!! ya and Washington D.C. is the capitol of [[Iraq]].--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Had to fix the article because i didnt want a confilct to occur if someone got offened because possesion of the city is very touchy subject. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

So the article on Jerusalem is as long as that on Bertie Higgins. This site is GREAT!!!! [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

This article should be much longer

Talk:James Dobson

2007-05-28T17:36:29Z

Oldoligarch:

I'm confused by this article. It claims that FOTF supports "traditional Christian values" and the "American family" without bothering to explain what they are - and indeed, who decides what they are. Are they trying to imply that whatever FOTF decides is traditional Christian values/the "normal" make-up of the American family? That's a scary thought.

This article needs to be expanded.