Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2012-08-06T21:58:14Z

RaymondW:

{{debate-politics}}

==No:==

Anyone should be able to learn in a public school, not just Christians. If Creationism is taught, every other scientific/non-scientific alternative should also be taught. And that includes things like Spaghetti Monster theory in Pastafarianism. To those who say that Christianity is the most believed, just because lots of people believe in it doesn't mean it's right. -RaymondW

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

I'm Another Editor: The basic argument here is whether Creationism should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The prior is not a science and can not be taught as a science because there are no scientific findings to back it up. Believing in evolution does not require atheistic viewpoints. There is no doubting that animals even during the presence of human observation change over the course of time and evolve. This does not say that at some point god did not create the world and animals and people but rather that the people and animals that god created change over the course of time. This is a fact and has been observed on many occasions. There is no argument here. The two ideas can go hand in hand.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

I suggest that you see this website:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Has creationism been proven? it had a lot longer than one hundred and forty eight years.... - Jimbobjeff18
: Today's assignment: Read in my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] the parts about "proof", then explain how you are using the word in your question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Gravity is a ''law'', not a theory. A theory is not "as close to proven as science gets", a ''law'' is. Furthermore, genetic evidence is against the original Darwinian theory of evolution, while "Puncuated Equilibrium" and "Neo-Darwinism" are ruled out by mere probability. Furthermore, is the belief that there may be a God or other Designer who created the universe unscientific because it does not agree with naturalistic prejudice? Give me a break.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 01:23, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: I suspect it's both (gravity, that is) a law ''and'' a theory. That is, there is a theory to explain the law. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

Creationism is by deffinition not science. Science is the explination of the world without resorting to supernatural means. creationism is that life, the universe and everything were created by a supernatural entity

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --[[User:Desmond]]
::::COUNTER: Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.No energy is ever destroyed, it is simply recycled. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:10, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a ''''scientific'''' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, '''''but likelihood does.''''' It ''is'' equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be ''disproven.'' This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is '''not''' shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have '''based upon the evidence'''. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being
corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Myk, you're making a lot of assumptions there. First, you assume that the outcome of any experiment is purely random. I get this from your 33% chance thing. Let me do what you just did: If I drop a ball close to the Earth's surface, one of two things will happen:
::::#It will fall to the ground and prove gravity exists.
::::#It will float in mid-air and disprove gravity.
::::Using math skills, I can ascertain that there is a 50% chance that gravity doesn't exist whenever anything is dropped from mid air. Since things are dropped near Earth's surface all the time, the chance that gravity exists is almost nothing.
::::Do you see the problem with your logic? When there's a system in place, the chance of something tested within it being untrue is actually very, very low. The chance that gravity exists is actually very close to (but not exactly) 100%. The same applies to evolution. It's a natural phenomenon that you can test. It's a system that has a (close to) 100% chance of being true. It's entirely possible that creation happened, it's entirely possible that there's no such thing as the past and we're all living within a snapshot of time. However, the chances of either of those being true, according to current information, is very very low.
::::As for "Teaching all <s>theories</s> explanations," here's the problem with that. By the time we teach our children every single explanation about where the Earth came from, their grandchildren will be about fifty years old. There are too many explanations from all parts of the world to possibly teach to someone in a reasonable amount of time. The best we can do is to teach the most probable (or most successful) explanations, of which creationism is not one of. If anyone comes up with a model that explains things better than the current one, we will switch to that.
::::As for "Teaching all '''''theories'''''": A theory is a set of models that has an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence to support it and that hasn't been sufficiently falsified. The Big Bang theory and the five or so competing theories in science fit into this category, and we don't even teach all of those! Creationism doesn't, because there is very little evidence supporting it, and things like rocks and fossils seem to contradict it. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:24, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think ''before'' asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#**See my point about Values Clarification below.
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YES and NO==

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== I dare you all... ==

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Definitely==
If one theory is to be excluded, it should be that pseudo-science fairy tale aka evolution.--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 16:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Proverbs 26:4==

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him."

I don't think we should have to bring down God's Word to the level of the evolutionists in an attempt convince them. They have already decided that they would rather put their faith in Satan's Lie rather than God's Truth. They will never believe the evidence just based off the evidence because of this. The only solution to stop evolutionists and evolutionism is for evolutionists to have a personal encounter with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can change their minds. We Christians are not strong enough because we are not really taking on the evolutionists, but trying to take on Satan because he is the one that has made their hearts so hard. That is why the only way to win the battle is to show evolutionists the love of Christ. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Uh, no...==

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==What if we nab Him and He says "I didn't do it?==

From what I understand from the ongoing debate, scientists/evolutionists take the stand that a theory cannot be considered scientific if it cannot be falsifiable, or proven wrong. For example, the current theory of evolution could be proven wrong if in the future we excavate human bones in a jurassic layer. (Actually, wouldn't that just push the time frame back a bit?) Therefore evolution theory is scientific. Evolutionists say that since there is no way to disprove whether God created the world, the theory of intelligent design is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. In fact, there is one way to falsify the theory of intelligent design, isn't there? What if, someday, we run into God, and He denies having created the world? That would falsify the theory of intelligent design, making ID, by definition, science. {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
: As you said, they might just put the time frame back a bit. Or they might claim it to be an intrusive burial. Or they might claim that it's not actually Jurassic after all. Whichever it is, they can find ''some'' excuse, so it wouldn't falsify it at all, which means that the theory as a whole (as distinct from some details) is [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

==Implementation: A question for those who support Creationism in the classroom==

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had the power to implement the changes you wanted. This still leaves a problem: large numbers of science teachers who are not qualified to teach Creationism (certainly not from a strictly Biblical standpoint) and who may be strongly motivated not to teach Creationism.

Now: it's been my experience that having a teacher who is ignorant and/or actively hostile to a concept "educate" children is frequently worse than simply not teaching the concept at all. Such a teacher can easily impart ideas that are inaccurate or downright wrong.

That being the case, how would you propose dealing with this problem? I see a few options:

A. Leave it up to individual teachers whether or not to teach Creationism

B. Require teachers, regardless of their personal beliefs, to teach Creationism according to a curriculum approved by Biblical experts, with penalties if they fail to do so.

C. Implement a code of conduct requiring all teachers to be good Christians. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; such codes of conduct were common in this country up until the second half of the twentieth century.)

{{unsigned|BenP}}, June 2008.
: Given that option B is what happens now, but for evolution (i.e. teachers who don't believe in evolution are still required to teach it according to a curriculum approved by evolutionists), then I could ask what would be wrong with option B? Except that I would substitute ''creationary scientists'' for ''biblical experts''. However, what the leading creationist organisations propose (and I go along with this) is basically option A; that teachers who want to teach it be able to and be legally protected. And that includes not just teaching creation science and/or intelligent design, but teaching the problems with evolution. Yes, there has even been a case where a teacher was not allowed to use papers by Gould, etc. if they pointed out problems for evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design. ==

Yes if there is a teachable theory that complies with scientific method
No if there isnt
I firmly believe that students need to learn that everything they are taught , in all subjects is a beginning of the subject , and they exceptions, problem areas , will make more sense if taught after the basics are understood. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
: ID ''is'' a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
:ID is '''not''' science. In the 2005 trial "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688", the judge provided a 139 page ruling, which included on page 64 the statement "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." The judge's justification for this statement continues up to and including page 89. I am not aware of any legal attempt to overthrow this ruling. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:49, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==

It occurs to me that a similar debate could have occurred 500 years ago, but first, some clarification:

A number of people seem confused on the use of several terms that have been floating around this debate page so I've decided to post some pertinent definitions along with citations just to clear some things up:

All definitions come from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Phenomenon: ''plural phenomena'' : an observable fact or event

Now that that's cleared up I'd like to justify my earlier statement. We seem to be entering yet another period of history where (relatively) new scientific theories (see above) are conflicting with previously accepted religious beliefs and as a result the scientists positing these theories are coming under attack from the religious institutions that these theories threaten. I am, of course, alluding to [[Nicolaus Copernicus]]. If we examine the progression of Copernicus' and subsequently Gallileo's ideas, we see that for some time, there was a debate about whether the Geocentric or Heliocentric theory of universal organization was to be accepted, and we no longer debate whether we should teach the earth as the center of the solar system/universe. In the end, history shows us that the theory backed by available scientific data prevailed, although not before scientific progress in this area was stymied by fear of religious persecution. There are a number of similarities to be drawn between the Copernicans and the Darwinists, in my opinion. I welcome corrections and comments, but please no mudslinging...--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 14:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Copernicus and Galileo were ''creationists'' whose view were not inconsistent with the biblical account. Their dispute was not one of religion vs. science but of their (creationist-compatible) science vs. the secular "science" of Aristotle that the church had adopted.
: The parallel today is of the battle between creationary "science" and secular evolutionary "science". So the parallel is between Darwinists and Aristotelians, not Darwinists and Copernicans.
: Yes, the theory backed by the available scientific data prevailed, as I hope will happen in the future, with creation prevailing, as it is more compatible with the available scientific data than is evolution.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::The parallel I was trying to make was not that Galileo and Copernicus were Darwinists, my point is that they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations. Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion. Today, scientists favoring the Theory of Evolution are coming under attack for a similar set of reasons. The distinction to be made is that we no longer say that the Earth is at the center of the universe just because the church said so. I am simply positing that we take the same stance on evolution based on a preponderance of evidence. In response to your last statement with regards to the scientific data in support of creationism, I respectfully ask that you be more specific, as I am not sure which studies/papers/research/etc. you're referring to.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 13:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations.''": You mean like modern-day creationists?
::: "''Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion.''": But it wasn't. Geocentricism is not taught in the Bible. The church was arguing from the ''secular science'' that they had adopted. Yes, they may have quoted a few biblical passages in support, but the "science" of the day was what they were arguing from, just a many Christians and churches today argue from secular science that evolution is true and try and find biblical passages in support.
::: As for supportive scientific data, I was meaning overall, rather than anything specific, and as such all I can do is point you to [http://creationontheweb.com here]. However, if you want an example, try [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/ this].
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::: To try and make that clearer for those not following, here's it laid out in a table:
:::{| class="wikitable"
! || Copernicus, Galileo, etc.|| Modern creationists || Church establishment of Galileo's time || Modern church establishment || Modern secular science
|-
| '''Position''' || Creationist (you wouldn't think so from anti-creationist arguments) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Evolutionist (to a fair extent) (as anti-creationists keep reminding us). || Evolutionist
|-
| '''Basis of particular beliefs''' || Bible and scientific research || Bible and scientific research || Aristotelean "science" || Secular "science"1 || Philosophical [[Naturalism]]
|-
| colspan="6" |1. The modern church establishment would reject the philosophical naturalism of modern science, but, for the most part not being scientists, put their trust in the "science" of those scientists.
|}
::: From this it can be seen that modern creationists, not modern secular scientists, are the parallel to Galileo and co., whilst in both cases the church establishment opposed on the basis of extra-biblical (I'd say ''un''biblical) views.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear. My point is not that Copernicus and his disciples were preaching evolution. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that they were creationist. My point is that their position of geocentrism was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs. The distinction is that the debate about what lies at the center of our solar system is no longer relevant because observational and scientific evidence arose in overwhelming support of geocentrism, while there is still debate about our origins even in light of observable evolutionary progression in the case of viruses and bacteria, as well as fossil evidence and carbon dating.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 15:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm not suggesting that you were claiming that Copernicus and others were preaching evolution. My comment in the table above about not realising that Copernicus et. al. were creationists is not because they are claimed to have been evolutionists, but because their case is used as an example of science supposedly winning out over religion, whilst ignoring that they were doing their science within their religious framework.
::::: "''...their position of geocentrism [I assume you mean heliocentricism?] was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs.''": This is about as ambiguous as it could be:
:::::* Scripture was ''used'' to oppose it, but Scripture was not opposed to it. Similarly today, Scripture is ''used'' to oppose young-Earth creationism, but Scripture is ''not'' opposed to it.
:::::* The "popular religious opinion" was actually the popular ''scientific'' opinion within the church. Just as evolution is the "popular religious opinion" today.
::::: The geocentricism/heliocentricism debate is (all but) over, because they rely on ''observational'' evidence (because we can observe the present). The origins debate is not over because it relies on ''philosophy'' about the ''unobservable past''. Viruses and bacteria show no changes that would produce microbe-to-man evolution, fossil evidence is missing the fossils that evolution would predict, and [[radiometric dating]] methods are unreliable and biased (and [[carbon dating]] has little to do with it).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

==Teaching ID/Creationism is unfair==

Letting ID be taught in the classroom is not a fair treatment of theories.

Let me give an analogy. Every World Cup somebody complains that it's unfair that Brazil and Italy always seem to win. Surely it would be fairer if Switzerland had a chance for a change? Well, no, because for Switzerland to have a chance at winning the rules would have to be changed substantially to favour Switzerland, so for example while every other team has to field only 11 players, Switzerland get 22. And if rules are to be fair, they must apply equally to all teams. Switzerland (or any other team) doesn't have a right to win every now and again, it must win according to the set of rules all teams are subject to. Even when these rules are applied equally, they will still favour certain teams - the best teams, made up of those who can play best within the rules. And that's a good thing, because whatever team it is, we want the best team to win, we think the best team ''should'' win. Sometimes the best team doesn't win (I think France were the best team in 2006), and there's always some disagreement, but everyone accepts that it's always the teams that are very good who win the Cup - the winner isn't selected by the rules at random.

The same is all true of the scientific review of theories and their acceptance into classrooms. It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught. All theories are subject to the same rules, they all have to pass through the same rigorous testing, peer review process, educational committees and so on before they get to the classrooms, and I hope we can all agree that that's a good thing (yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair). The process favours the best theories, those suitable for being taught in a classroom. ID has not gone through this process, and so it is unfair that it becomes taught in the classroom.

Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so." They may feel similar to how I would feel if every world cup was won by Morocco or Australia because of corruption by officials or something along those lines. However, if every world cup ''were'' being won by those teams for those reasons, I would argue that the officials be sacked and for abuses to be investigated, but never that Italy or Brazil should just be declared winners without having to go through the tournament at all. I would want a new tournament where the rules were being properly enforce to be held, and only if Brazil or Italy were to win it should they be declared winners. In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring, and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated, instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory. Once the rules are enforced properly, then YEC/ID should, if well supported by evidence, be able to successfully pass through the process and only then should they be taught in the classroom. If a YEC/ID believes that it's not just how the rules are being enforced but the rules themselves that are at fault, then they must take into account how their rule changes might affect theories that they believe to be unscientific. For example (and I am not arguing that this is a view YEC/IDs hold) if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population, then such things as astrology and mysticism would, by our principle that our rules should apply to everyone equally, be allowed to slip in.

I'll be interested in PJR's response to this. I hope my analogy was clear, and my post not too long. And finally, if anybody wants to post a criticism of my view, please take the entire post into account, because I don't want one of my claims being picked on when I've already provided counter-criticisms elsewhere in the post.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 22:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:: Your analogy was clear, and I don't mind (moderately-) long posts. However, your analogy was not entirely appropriate and ignores some underlying assumptions.
:: The soccer (World Cup) analogy is actually quite interesting—in the World Cup, the opposing sides are at least allowed to compete. This is not the case with ID nor creation. If the rules of the World Cup said that Australia was not allowed to compete because Australia can't win, it would hardly be a fair rule, would it?
:: "''It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught.''": And I guess it's not the case that any team has the right to compete? Oh, wait...
:: "''All theories are subject to the same rules,...''": No, ID and creationism are ruled out ''a priori''. The Biological Society of Washington, for example, published in their journal a pro-ID paper. They received massive criticism for it—''because it was pro-ID''. So they declared that they would not publish pro-ID papers again. Note that they didn't say that any future pro-ID papers would be properly peer-reviewed or etc. They said they ''would not be published''. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution#Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington|here]]. What's that about the same rules?
:: "''...(yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair...''": I'm glad you agree. Because that is precisely the problem. Just look at all the anti-creationist arguments that claim that creationism is not science ''because it invokes God''. In other words, ''it's not science unless it's materialistic''.
:: "''Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so."''": That's not exactly how I'd put it, but that's close enough for now. But keep in mind that the "rules" are not formally laid down like the rules of the World Cup. You can't take a scientific journal to court and say that "the laws of [insert country] say that scientific journals must accept all papers that pass a specified peer-review process". There are no such "rules" in that sense. You can really only appeal to their sense of fair play (which is obviously absent in these cases) or appeal to public sympathy.
:: "''In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, ...''": Qualified by my comments in the previous paragraph, this is the case.
:: "''...then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring,...''": Dr. Jerry Bergman in particular has done this sort of study.[https://store.creationontheweb.com/au/product_info.php?products_id=740&osCsid=0e2a49ce6bb8f57186f7edbeb9c78636] See also [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|here]].
:: "''...and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated...''": Wouldn't getting school boards to adopt a fairer approach amount to this? Yet the evolutionists fight it at every turn. Even claiming that evolution is not a fact was [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution#Cobb County School District|disallowed]].
:: "''...instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory.''": Tell the evolutionists that. They use the courts to decide what is allowed in science. Isn't ''that'' a case of bypassing the system?
:: "''...if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population...''": Yet that ''argument ad populum'' is the very sort of argument that evolutionists use. Evolution is believed by the majority of scientists, so therefore that's the only one to be taught. Part of the problem is that we are not talking about hard science (observable, testable, science) here. That is, nobody can run any experiments to see if dinosaurs really did turn into birds tens of millions of years ago. (Even if we ran experiments that should that scales ''could'' turn into feathers, it would not prove that this ''did'' happen.) We are, to a fair extent, talking about ''history''. So evolutionists can't say "we've proved [goo-to-you] evolution is true in the laboratory; see, here's the experiments, and you can run them again yourselves if you don't agree", so they have to resort to "most scientists agree"-type arguments.
:: Another problem, although already mentioned above, is that the "rules" are stacked against creation and ID. Or you could say that creation and ID has to pass rules that evolution doesn't have to pass. For example, in the case linked above, the court ruled that the school board decision was unconstitutional because the proponents of the decision had "religious" motives. That is, they had a view about God that was behind their decision. But this ignores that many evolutionists also have a view about God that drives their views—but these are ''atheistic'' views. So pro-theistic motives are not allowed, but anti-theistic motives are!
:: Note also that the main creationist groups do not support teachers being forced to teach creation and ID, although they do support teachers being ''allowed'' to teach it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)

==IT'S NOT SCIENCE==
Several large court cases had the proponents of ID state that '''ID is not science!'''
ID has virtually no scientific papers up for peer review
To qualify ID as science, you'd also be qualifying Astrology as science.

Teach it in Philosophy / World History (when discussing Christianity)- NOT science class, where there is no science behind it!
[[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 11:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

==No!==

If ID, or creationism should be tought at school, keep it out of science classes.

Why?

Because neither of themhave any scientific merrit. It's a poor attempt to use some scientific method to fit their perception of the world into biblical context. If Creationism should be tought at school well, then ALL creationist ideas should be tought at school. not only christian Creationism, but hinduism, Shamanism, Asatru Creationism, Aborigini creationism, and shyamanism.

Creationism is nothing more than a prolonged arm of a religious agenda.

Want fair and balanced knowledge?

Let the students learn about all religions in school. but keep it ou of bioogy classes, or anything that remotelly resembles science. Because science it is not.

Thanks

Bohemianwriter1 {{unsigned|Bohemianwriter1}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-06-26T00:59:12Z

RaymondW:

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= potentially Christian, Muslim, may be Atheist
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''', also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref> (born August 4, 1961, in [[Hawaii]]) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change" against his listless opponent [[John McCain]] in 2008. In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]] and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse [[Obama]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<ref>http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in its history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting.

Fatalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf (pg. 3 pdf)]</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

Obama's bizarre gaffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps."<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe</ref> Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".

==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama [[Barack Obama's past dog meat eating and 2012 election campaign|ate dog meat]] as a child.

Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. This story is likely a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives including the leadership of this site and brilliant business man [[Donald Trump]] AKA "The Donald" called for Obama to release his birth certificate he did on April 27. Another [[American Hero]] Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Phoenix, AZ conducted a criminal investigation of the Obama's eligibility and alleged that the "birth certificate" was a fake; however, no charges have been filed.

The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia,<ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=obama%20ate%20dog&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fp%2Fnews%2Fnational%2Fromney_aides_point_out_obama_ate_pCetn9EcM0lOYNiJFl1zgI&ei=hAqaT86sMbOr2AXHoYj6Dg&usg=AFQjCNENy7Tz2DPv2_sO0EH6TGZ23rJtxA&cad=rja]</ref> before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Also Obama is a socialist and a Muslim. Recently he instated socialized healthcare in the USA which will eventually lead to a Communist regime that resembles the Soviet Union. Expert economists in this field have also speculated that he is truly the anti-Christ. In the next few months Obama's secret police will start taking away your freedom. The bible makes this very clear. For example, Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. In order to have power over all of the people of the Earth this would likely require a One-World-Government.Obama talks about a New World Order in his Berlin speech that basically says Global Citizenship is required and not an option. Many people already see Obama as the "President of the World."

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/] </ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel. <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref><ref>S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012.</ref><ref>Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Mexico=====

In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort.

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - leader of Libya for 41 years - responded to the violent activism<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legible steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to carry out [[George W. Bush]]'s timetable to end the War in Iraq, which has been completed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-06-25T23:54:02Z

RaymondW:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

First of all, without getting into uncertainties about measurement, anyone can get an approximation of pi as 3; anyone can take a string and measure the diameter of a circle or sphere and compare it to the circumfrence. That in itself is unremarkable. -RaymondW

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, waves aren't subject to gravity? As in, the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't (say) the Dirac spinor wavefunction of an electron subject to electromagnetic interactions in QED? Once we are able to quantize GR, won't we have something similar? (i.e. effects of gravity on the motion of some massive particle.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:23, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yes, waves are subject to gravity. A good example is gravitational lensing, in which gravity deflects the path of electromagnetic ''waves''. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity predict this, although only general relativity's predictions are consistent with the data. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gravity-induced+quantum+interference&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=DohdT7f1IoGogwelhfGhCw&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA In quantum mechanics gravity can also cause interference]. So, yes, gravity does indeed act on waves. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:35, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

:When you refer to the ice mummy, is this the famous one? ie. Ötzi? Because if it is, closer examination of the body has revealed that he actually died of a head injury, and an arrow embedded in his back, not the rain. Other evidence (the blood of three or so individuals other than himself on the corpse and his weapons) indicates that he was killed in warfare, and therefore is totally unrelated to the flood. I'll just double check the sources then, if no one else objects, I'll remove it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:48, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

::I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this. But let's review and discuss more information deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I found a few recent sources. A ''National Geographic'' article from November 2011 gives the cause of death as an arrow (and possibly a blow to the head), the website of the museum where he is kept [inhttp://www.iceman.it/en/how-oetzi-died] gives the arrow and head injury (this isn't a great source to be honest), a Guardian article from 2002 gives some details about the wounds [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/21/humanities.research1] and the abstract for a paper indicates that the arrow wound might have healed slightly before death[http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/26/rsif.2012.0174]. This is good enough for me. I will leave it a while anyway to see if anything else comes up.

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
:Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

:::::Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::They have the same [[Creator]], so if one searches hard enough then a few similarities can be found, but fundamentally they were created on different days for different purposes, and are very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Jpatt

2012-06-25T23:39:54Z

RaymondW:

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Archive 2011 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2011‎]

== Blank3r ==

Good job stopping him.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 14:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

==Adambro==
Hi Jpatt, what did you mean by "AdamBro is clan but keep on eye on him. Sock puppets of BL4NK3R; NoohWicky, UtterMuppet, Maggie, B0LLL0X". Is he a sockpuppet ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:04, 11 January 2012 (EST)
:AdamBro is clean, as far as socks are involved. He might be what Tony has said, so follow his future edits.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)
::I will, thanks for the info. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:15, 11 January 2012 (EST)

==RaymondW==

Hi Jpatt:

My former account on Conservapedia was named r136a1. The reason you provided for blocking this account is user name policy: please consider recreating your account with a real first name and last initial. Could you please tell me where this policy can be found on Conservapedia? And also, just to clarify, I realize it is not a real name, but it is not a random string of letters and numbers; it is the name of the most luminous star. By the way, your page says that you block liberal fascists; but, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that most agree that fascists are extremely right wing, but liberals are left wing.

== Thank you ==

Thanks for the welcome and reverting vandalism on my user and talk page! I don't understand that vandal --- it was my first day and I don't think i wrote anything controversial, why would anyone do that to me? [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 12:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Get used to liberal intimidation. We can block their ideology but they counter with vandalism. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:15, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::What a shame, indeed. [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 14:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I think KendallP/BostonBakedBeans23 realized he wasn't following the name rule, and so changed it so he wouldn't get blocked. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:17, 16 January 2012 (EST)
:You would like to see Kendall unblocked?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)
::Yes, and thank you for unblocking him. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:28, 16 January 2012 (EST)

: Also, Thanks! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)

== Rubio ==

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit? Everything I said was true and sourced. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 13:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Calling him a liberal is just tit for tat namecalling, but his support for PIPA is well documented. That should stay in the article.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:20, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:Add the PIPA stuff. Keep the liberal statement out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:23, 20 January 2012 (EST)

::Thank you, I will. I don't apprive of name calling, either. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:25, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It wasn't done in namecalling. It has been stated by several members, including Andy, that any Republican supporting SOPA/PIPA is a liberal/rino no matter their record and stances. I questioned it but it was insisted. So I added what I did to Rubio since he was a sponsor. I don't consider Rubio liberal but I don't consider Lamar Smith liberal either. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 15:58, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Yes it is name calling. It was name calling when they did it to Lamar Smith and it was name calling when you did it right back to Rubio. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the proper response to an inappropriate edit is not another inappropriate edit. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:It's too early to label Rubio based on his supporting legislation. The Tea Party backs conservatives and Rubio. Also, I thought it was to early to label Scott Brown. I was wrong once. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)

== Vandalism ==

You do realise that you just reverted all my edits to the ones done by RickPeterson, who got blocked for inserting nonsense? Just saying... --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)
:Yea, Oops--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)
::Well, never mind. You fixed it now. I guess it gets confusing dealing with all those idiots. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:27, 24 January 2012 (EST)

== MPR ==

Just letting you know that it was federal court that overturned Prop 8, not, as implied by your latest entry, a Californian court. Cheers. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:23, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Two issues==
*(a) Archive 107 from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index here] mistakenly brings up Archive 106;
*(b) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/108 Talk:Main Page/Archive index/108] need to be added. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:51, 12 February 2012 (EST)

:Noted--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 13 February 2012 (EST)

== Thanks ==

I wasn't aware I warranted vandalism :P Thanks for the reverts. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 19:37, 25 February 2012 (EST)

:You know what they say? Without evil we would never recognize good. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:44, 25 February 2012 (EST)

== Hi redneck ==

You don't have the skills to edit an encyclopedia. Please go, you monumental idiot. --[[User:Sextertainer|Sextertainer]] 13:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)
::Really, your brain is way too small. You can't write properly. Really. --[[User:Sextertainer|Sextertainer]] 13:48, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Your mom called, she said you are late for your LGBT counseling. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:23, 28 February 2012 (EST)

== Description ==

Hi Mr./Mrs. Jpatt,

(Please accept my apologies on the ambiguous greeting. Gender is difficult on the web without further research) Could you please give me a description of this web site? I'm writing about online media interfaces for a course at my university and would love to learn more.

Thank you,
Sarah

:Hi Sarah, try this [[Conservapedia:About]] and read about the wiki founder Andy Schlafly [[Andy_Schlafly]]. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:05, 2 March 2012 (EST)
::Thank you for the information. I will be in touch with Mr. Schlafly shortly. Sarah

==Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution==
Please show them to me. If there are none, please revert my editing of the United States of America page. - [[Rdsmith]] 10:42 (EST), 8 March 2012
: "all men are endowed by their Creator," In other words, the same era of people that wrote the Constitution, ratified the Declaration of Independence. I will not remove Judeo-Christian principles from the United States of America page. The Founders put us on the Gregorian calender. This means the Judeo-Christian.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:04, 8 March 2012 (EST)

::That is the Declaration of Independence, which is not law, it is a deist reference, and to cite Jefferson for Judeo-Christian values is moot (at least) as he created his own Bible where he cut the New Testament to present Jesus as good moral teacher who died. The Gregorian calender was the prevailing calender at the time, and creating a new calender would have been folly. Again, please show me exclusively Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution. [[Rdsmith]] 11:35 (EST), 8 March 2012

:::Why create a new calender when the Farsi and Chinese calenders already existed? Again, please stop trying to split hairs on the subject between secular and religion. We were not founded as a theocracy and we were not founded as a Godless nation either. The overblown "Jefferson was not religious" lovefest has been debunked already. Your "moot" point that nobody talks about is that Jefferson founded the American Bible Society and paid for the importation of 20000 Bibles. Look at the opening preambles of the 50 state constitutions and their references to God. [http://www.christianindex.org/617.article]. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)
::::I understand that this story has been circulating for many years in many forms but none of this is true. Jefferson did not found the American Bible Society. Neither he nor Congress paid for 20,000 Bibles to be imported. The 20,000 number comes from a proposed resolution in Congress to import Bibles because there were no printers in the US during the revolutionary war and we were obviously embargoed from importing Bibles during the war. After the war there was a real shortage. Jefferson really wasn't Christian in any sense: he may have believed in his own idea of God but he absolutely didn't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, the triune person of Christ, etc. These beliefs are central to Christianity as far as I am aware. I may be wrong about whether evangelicals accept the various personages of Christ. Jefferson accepted none of them. I understand the desire of Christian men to associate important figures with their faiths but we wouldn't do this with a villain or a blasphemer and we oughtn't do it with a man who didn't adore Jesus Christ as his lord and savior but only as some random guy who lived in Palestine a long time ago. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)

:::::I fixed my quote above. Jefferson did respect religion and is quoted praising the Bible. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:16, 8 March 2012 (EST)

::::The people living in the colonies were primarily accustomed to a European (therefore Christ-based) calender so using the Farsi or Chinese calenders would be of equal folly. I'm talking about the government of the United States and since the Articles of Confederation has been godless, as for America the nation, I'll agree it is has a strong Christian heritage (then again to question Christianity openly has been taboo until contemporary times).The "godliness" of the constitutions of the colonies range from freedom to religion to religious requirements for office (the latter being specifically opposed by the Constitution in Article VI). You can fixate on preambles all you want, all they state is ends, while I'm look at means, but I looked at the preambles of the constitutions of the states when America was founded, not very Judeo-Christian to me.

::::So, for a third time, in the context of " the United States Constitution was written; grounded on republican political principles and Judeo-Christian values," show me the specific Judeo-Christian values in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. If not, then I can show you the Enlightenment principles the government of this country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence was based on Locke, but even Locke uses the term "God" as opposed to more deistic references of the Dec. -- [[Rdsmith]] 11:42 (EST) 9 March 2012

:::::I told you once but you didn't listen. You asked me three times but I will not respond. Is gay marriage in the Constitution?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:59, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Would the "exclusively Judeo-Christian (or republican) principles in the US Constitution" include chattel slavery and the fact that people of African descent counted as 3/5 of a human being? [[User:HarveyG|HarveyG]] 12:51, 9 March 2012 (EST)

::::::White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)

== Suggestions ==

Thank you so much for your great work and for the welcome message.
I am so encouraged to see this truly excellent encyclopedia representing what wikipedia could have been with some serious intellectual honesty.

A few suggestions:
1) Human Life International has a new president and is undergoing some great improvements in their ministry, including updating articles and resources. Perhaps they could be added to your top pro-life websites.
2) lovefacts.org is a veritable gold-mine of good medical references documenting the harms of induced abortion and contraception, which we need mine to improve many articles on the subject.
3) pop.org is the Population Research Institutes homepage; it is a pro-life alternative to PP's Guttmacher Institute, and they expose the myth of overpopulation and the numerous human rights abuses throughout the world in the name of "population control." Perhaps "overpopulation myth" or something similar would be a good page to refute these widespread errors driving the culture of death and its devotion to abortion and contraception.

I look forward to contributing in a forum where my input is appreciated and allowed to benefit the souls of all who may read the articles.
[[User:Frankgyn|Frankgyn]] 16:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Awesome, glad to see your interest and feel free to update articles or create new ones. Blessings. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:34, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

==Holy Week==
I'll be mostly absent this week. Blessed Easter! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:38, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Reversion of vandalism ==

I blocked User:ShagMe but I am unable to revert the vandalism due to the spam filter inexplicably preventing me from doing so. It appears that a series of colons (that I obviously can't type here lest the spam filter get me again) is triggering the problem. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks for removing the It Gets Worse link from the Anti-Semite website! ==

Thank you for removing the link to the It Gets Worse page, from a notoriously racist and anti-Semitic "Southern Conservative" website which blames the Jews for Communism, feminism, Facebook, and Psychoanalysis. I hate anti-Semitism, and I know Conservapedia doesn't endorse it either. I know it was a mistake that you posted the link first, but I looked at the website (Jett and Jahn media), and I was disgusted at the anti-Semitism and racism they espouse. They even have downloadable games which show the Ku Klux Klan as good guys! These guys give conservatism a bad name, and they are thankfully nobodies in the conservative movement.

You are indeed a great editor, who learns from his mistakes like any decent human being! Conservapedia forever! -[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]] June 18, 2012

:I have notified [[Jewish Internet Defense Force]]. Thanks again for pointing that out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:00, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2012-06-25T23:36:31Z

RaymondW:

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
 


== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

::::Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

* Section (a) lists the offenses.
* Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
* Section (c) lists the punishments
* Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
* Section (e) defines terms
* Section (f) allows legal investigations
* Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
* Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
* Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
* Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
* Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
* Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
* Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
* Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
* Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:*And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another [[liberal deceit]], a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::*Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"? And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction? Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::: The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
:::: ''(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—''

::::''(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);''
::::''(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or''
::::''(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;''

:::: As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information. It's an objective test of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (i.e. Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information). This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained. The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the ''obtaining'' of information not the ''depositing'' or ''removal'' of information. The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details). Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::And what is the application here of outright harrassment of an individual(s), up to and including cyber-terrorism? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::Interesting question, by the looks of it 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (5) might cover harrasment of an individual(s), but only if such a harrasment caused physical damage and the harrasment didn't occur through authorized access. To be honest it looks like this is the wrong piece of legislation if you are looking to prosecute harrasment. It might be worth looking at legislation that covers harm to an individual. As to cyber-terrorism 18 § 1030 does cover it, but only in section (a) subsections (1), (3), & (5); at a federal level it seems that US Government only considers cyber-terrorism to be something that occurs against itself and its own interests. Attacks against private computers don't seem to be considered acts of cyber-terrorism, instead it seems to be considered to be attempts at theft, fraud or disruption of commerce, all of which cause monetary harm. Again I need to emphasize that is the point of view solely from 18 § 1030. It could be that other pieces of legislation are more appropriate.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::::::The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've gone through the whole of section (a) of 18 § 1030 and this is what I've discovered:

::::'''''Subsection (1):''' having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations,…''— obviously doesn't apply in this case as wiki's shouldn't contain information that breaches this part of subsection (1) (and if they did the wiki itself would be in violation of this part of subsection (1))

::::'''''Subsection (1) cont.:'''…or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;''— Again this part of the subsection obviously doesn't apply to the vandalism of wikis, unless the purpose of the "vandalism" was in fact to transmit information that could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

::::'''''Subsection (2)''''' See above post.

::::'''''Subsection (3):''' intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again doesn't apply to wikis, as they aren't nonpublic, or for either the exclusive use or non-exclusive use for the official business of the Government of the United States. Again the objective test applies here: is it reasonable that the average man would know that any particular computer is a)non-public or b) for the exclusive or non-eclusive use by the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (4):''' (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;''— Doesn't apply to Conservapedia on multiple grounds. The only way somebody can add or delete material to this site is with authorization. That authorization gives the user the right to add or delete material as he wishes. A user cannot be said to have exceeded his authorized access unless he acts or attempts to perform an act that is greater than his auhtorized access (i.e. a user that has only edit rights on Conservapedia would exceed authorized access if he deliberately made an attempt to access users IP addresses, or deliberately made a personal attempt to block other users. However, a user cannot be said to have exceeded authorised access by deleting or defacing an entire page of information, as the granting of editing rights to that person grants him the authorised access to be able to do these things {i.e. the ability to edit is granted in the authorized access, the user hasn't had to hack the site to gain the ability to delele or add information}). That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes. Vandalism of wikis also fails to fall under the protection of subsection (4) as the ''mens rea'' of subsection (4) is the intent to defraud. When used in such a manner the term defraud has a legal rather than a dictionary meaning, and the legal interpretation of fraud or defraud is applied to those acts which seek to obtain that which has monetary value and to do so in an manner deamed illegal. Vandalism isn't an attempt to defraud (i.e. the vandal isn't seeking to make monetary gain), rather it is an attempt to damage or cause harm.

::::'''''Subsection (5):''''' It is this subsection that probably comes closest to addressing the problem of vandalism.

::::'''''(A)'''''
::::''(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;''
::::''(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or''
::::''(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and…''

::::This would cover vandalism on Conservapedia except for two problems;
::::i) '…intentionally causes damage……recklessly causes damage……causes damage…'— Again it is a pecularity of the law that damage is that which is considered to have incurred harm, be it physical or mental, or monetary costs. Vandalism to Conservapedia wouldn't fall into this category because it doesn't incur damage involving monetary cost to a protected computer as any such vandalism can be repaired by a volunteer, thereby incurring no cost as the volunteer isn't charging to repair the vandalism. Nor does such vandalism add more to the running costs of the site compared to a user making a legitimate edit of the same length.
::::ii) '…without authorization…'— As discussed in subsection (4) the fact that a user has to apply to Conservapedia and be accepted as a member before he can gain editing rights means that his access to articles and his right to edit them in any way that he sees fit is authorized by the owner of the site. If the owner doesn't want a user having full editing rights there are many ways to ensure that a user doesn't have those rights, ranging from not granting those rights, restricting those rights (i.e. the user is not being able to delete or add material directly, but instead the user has to make submission for consideration for inclusion in Conservapedia), or removing those rights completely. The fact that the owner grants full editing rights means that authorization is given for the user to make full edits, whether they are helpful or unhelpful.

::::'''''…(B)''' by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—''
::::''(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''
::::''(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;''
::::''(iii) physical injury to any person;''
::::''(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or''
::::''(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; ''

::::And it is this part of the subsection that ensures that subsection (5) wouldn't apply to Conservapedia. Obviously subparagraphs (B/ii), (B/iii), (B/iv), and (B/v) wouldn't apply and that just leaves subsparagraph (B/i) (''loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''). Any vandalism to the site in terms of editing (as opposed to a (D)DOS attack) doesn't incur monetary costs as such vandalism is easily repaired by volunteers at no cost to the site (i.e. when a user repairs vandalism to the site that user doesn't invoice the owner of the site for monetary compensation for work done). Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.

::::'''''Subsection (6):''' knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—''
::::''(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or''
::::''(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again this is a section that doesn't apply to Conservapedia as a) vandalism on Conservapedia isn't attempting to defraud traffics, b) Conservapedia isn't involved in commerce through www.conservapedia.com and c) isn't a computer used by or for the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (7):''' with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;''— Again doesn't apply to vandalism on Conservapedia as the vandalism isn't an attempt to extort money or items or goods that have a monetary value.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Perhaps I'm talking through my hat not being a lawyer, but I would disagree with a couple of points there, although not enough to change your overall conclusion.
::::: "''That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes.''": No, granting full editing rights does ''not'' grant the user the ''authorisation'' (as opposed to ''ability'') to vandalise.
::::: "''Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.''": Perhaps not, but it ''does'' cost the site's owner, in that there is extra bandwidth involved and extra disk storage space (assuming both are being paid per quantity used). True, the cost would be nowhere near $5,000, so the law would still not apply, but because the cost is small, not because there is no cost.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::::After reading through this discussion again, it seems to me like various posters have made a strong case that [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] does not apply here. This discussion has been very worthwhile, and I, for one, have learned a lot. Some posters have raised valuable questions about certain language that ''might'' apply, which has spurred us on to examine the law more deeply, but upon further examination it seems like this is not the case. Unless someone else has points to consider, it seems like we're coming to the conclusion that the reference to [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] should be removed from the article. In addition, if any of the editors who brought this to our attention have been sanctioned because of their participation in this discussion (and I'm not sure if this has been the case or not), it may be wise, upon reflection, to review that decision. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated - your contributions have all been useful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::Aha, we're back. I've noticed that four questions have been raised. I think that in an edit summary somebody wanted to know whether I have any legal training. Yes, plus years of experience working in many specialties including US federal law (although not State level laws, too many States and not much call for that kind of specialty in the UK).
::::Karajou asked:''"The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both?"''. If it was up to me, given that I know only the basics of the case, I would look to prosecute under 18 § 1030 s(ection):(A), s(ub)s(ection):(5), s(ub)p(aragraph): (A/iii) & sp: (B/iii), and, by a quick look it appears that the state law of Missouri at the time didn't seem to cover this situation ([http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local_state/154433.txt this] excellent article explains a bit more, as does [http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/683421.html this one] {tenth paragraph down}). I won't go into exacting detail why I would choose 18 § 1030 but the basic argument I would have used in a prosecution would have been '''''i)'''''The messages were sent and received through My Space, a site that fulfills the requirements to be a 'protected computer' through virtue of the fact that access to any relevant service that MySpace offers can only be enjoyed when a someone signs up for an account. If somebody doesn't sign up to an account then the services that MySpace offers can't be accessed. You will notice that a different system of operation applies to a wiki however. The main service of a wiki is to provide information, and access to that information is given freely to the public, thereby removing any argument that the site is a private or protected computer. '''''ii)'''''Acquiring an account at MySpace means signing up to a legally binding contract that specifically delineates the exact authorisation that a user has to access and use the services available, that would mean that behaviour such as harrassment of another individual would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the contract. Breaching the terms of the contract means that the user is acting without authorization. Again this is different to the current setup of Conservapedia where a user creates an account to acquire the ability to edit it as this signing up procedure doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a contract (I won't go into details about why not, but to use legal jargon the procedure that the user goes through to become a volunteer at the site doesn't meet the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law consideration] test for a contract, plus it fails to meet the requirements to form a legally binding contract in other ways as well). Without a contract that sets out the exact level of authorisation that a user has in terms of editing it becomes a lot more difficult to say exactly where that authorisation begins and ends ''purely from a legal point of view''. '''''iii)'''''The last part of sp:(A/iii) reads ''"…causes damage"''. I think it is this part that causes the most problems if you wanted to bring a prosecution in the above case. If you read sp: (A/i) it clearly states ''"intentionally causes damage…to a protected computer"'', whereas sp: (A/ii) & (A/iii) just talk about causing damage, it doesn't specify what too. However A/i, A/ii and A/iii are all part of the same paragraph and therefore obviously linked, so that raises a quandrey within the courts about how that part of the statute should be read. The court could decide that given that A/i states that the damage must be done to a computer then the intent of the framers of the law was that the same applies to the rest of the subparagraph (i.e. any damage caused would have to be done to a computer). Or the court could decide to take a literal interpretation of the law (i.e. parts A/ii and A/iii don't state that the damage has to occur to a specific object). Again, if it was me arguing the case I would try and argue the latter, and that the damage caused in A/iii was the severe psychological trauma caused to the victim, but I wouldn't be confident of winning that argument. And finally '''''iv)''''' sp: (B/iii) requires that ''"physical injury to any person"'' occurs. In this particular case that, obviously, would be the suicide of the teenager.
::::And the last two questions were Philip J. Rayment's. On the first question, as I mentioned above, I see your point, it can be very difficult to see how a court would decide on the question of 'without authorization' when there is no legal binding contract to point out the exact extent of a user's authorisation. But the basis of US law is the same as the basis of English and Welsh law, Scottish law, Northern Ireland law and I'm guessing Australian law (given the shared heritage), in that the whole foundation of the law is that it is designed to define what is forbidden, and what isn't forbidden is allowed. That sounds obvious, but other legal systems (such as France's) often work on the principle that the law is there to define what you are allowed to do (i.e. what isn't allowed is forbidden). There is no specific US federal law that prohibits making unhelpful edits to Conservapedia, as long as those edits aren't furthering terrorism or in some way violate 18 U.S.C. § 2425, so without some way of saying that those edits are specifically illegal (i.e specifically violate laws preventing terrorism or those sections covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2425, or violated the terms and conditions laid out in a legally binding contract) it would, at best, be extremely difficult to argue that those edits were made without authorisation. As to the second question, that of cost, again it all comes down to how the law is argued in court. Obviously this specific law was never designed to cover wikis, but instead was designed to protect online businesses, businesses that rely on computers, or the US Government. Obviously, monetary damages to all of those are relatively easy to qunatify (how much did it cost to repair the damage, how much did it cost you to lose that information, how much did it cost you to make relevant changes to your security systems, how much did it cost you in lost business). Wikis on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to determine how much damage has been done monetarily when an unhelpful edit is made. Reverting that edit requires time, certainly, but that time is given freely by a volunteer, so no cost. Extra bandwidth and storage space? Well, if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and replaces it with 4 then the edit has actually reduced the cost of running Conservpedia, based on storage costs.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Thanks for the response to my points. On the first one, the authorisation issue, I accept your point about there being no law nor legally-binding contract regarding what is and what is not authorised.
::::: On the cost of the vandalism, I'd still argue that you are wrong (but still in the context that the cost would be very minor), as if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and adds four, to use your example, the storage requirement is ''increased'', as the database still stores those 2000 removed words, as well as the four new ones. This is obvious from the mere fact that you can view the history of the article and see those 2000 words in the history. And from the fact that any editor can revert back to those 2000 words, thereby creating yet another record in the database (although whether that new record duplicates those 2000 words or simply points to the older record I don't know). Even deleted pages and deleted ('oversighted') edits are still in the database taking up room unless specifically removed by someone with required rights.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)
::::::Ah, boss thinking there. Didn't think of it in terms of storage costs re retention of deleted material :-)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:33, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Seeing as the majority of users in this discussion support changing this, could it be changed? Or, could those who support keeping the current state of the page (notably Andy) provide their legal analysis? Sorry if it seems like I'm too new to suggests this- I've been using Conservapedia for a while, but didn't actually create an account till now.[[User:NSchneider|NSchneider]] 11:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

*No. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:27, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

==Please un-archive the current discussion==

I have been interested in following the recent discussion here, and would prefer that it not be archived for a little while. Many of the posters provided food for thought, including PJR. It can only benefit us to better understand our situation, and one way to do that is to dig into the text of the law and discuss it with others, who may see things differently. Listening to others' points of view can help us see our own blind spots, and/or can help strengthen our understanding as to why we are in fact right. ''Both'' of these are good outcomes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Proper Citations ==

"This actually happened" is not in any way, shape, or form, an actual citation. Can we please, please stop this practice. -- 19:07, 11 March 2009 Deuce

*Could you offer a citation that will illustrate your point, Deuce? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:17, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Certainly!
Bad example: President Lincoln was born on the moon.(1]
(1] This is proven to be true.
Really? Proven? Where? Any ridiculous statement can be made to sound official when you add that "citation."
Good example: At least ten people were killed in a shooting spree in Alabama on Tuesday. (1]
(1]http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1036167920090311
Here I've linked a news article reporting on the event. A citation needs a source other than the author's own word. That's the entire point! {{unsigned|Deuce}} -- 05:28, 12 March 2009

:*''But you are not showing an example that caused you to make the post.'' And not all statements need a citation. If I were to make an edit saying '''"95% of all [[liberals]] practice [[deceit]]"''' it wouldn't need a citation or reference, because it is a ''truism'', so apparent to anyone with common sense and an open mind, that it is obvious. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

::I can't say I agree with your "truism." By adding a finite value, (95%) you're establishing a measurement. Something other than "common sense." Saying "liberals often practice deceit" seems closer to a truism. The finite value of 95% would need some sort of citation, like a study that came up with such a result. (not that anyone could really measure something like deceit. Imagine the inaccuracy of a survey that asks "Do you lie?") Of course, that's off-topic. I looked for the previous poor citations, but the strong examples that came to mind seem to have been edited already. Keep up the good work people!

::*In the future, just post to my talk page if anything strikes you that strongly. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:47, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

==Just a suggestion==

I'm noticing that several "trolls" have been banned after posting to an admin's talk page. Maybe it should be an official rule: ''Do not annoy the admins.'' Especially since I have not seen a lot of warning before banning. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 23:15, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Notability ==

Are there any rules with respect to notability requirements for article topics? [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 12:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

== BCE/CE vs. B.C./A.D. ==

Just a minor nitpicky point which I can't change because it's protected. But you mention that "B.C. or A.D." should be used instead of "BCE or CE". However, while styles differ on whether they should be writtedn BC/AD/BCE/CE or B.C./A.D./B.C.E./C.E. we should be consistent with where we put or don't put periods in the abbreviations. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:06, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

==Spam Warning==

It comes up whenever I try to edit something, says that I have blacklisted sites, which I don't. Anyone have an explanation? -RaymondW

Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?

2012-06-25T23:23:47Z

RaymondW:

Out of interest, as a Catholic, socialist, scientist European, would many on hear say I was not Christian?

==Yes==
Of course. Conservative is not a religion. Conservatives believe in individual freedoms. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Something i find interesting: the page on Christianity is shorter than the one on atheism. [[User:RaymondW|RaymondW]]

:Individual freedoms...Except when they contradict an obscure biblical passage? Or individual freedoms, except when they make soccer moms mildly queasy? Or individual freedoms except that person isn't an American, so why should they have freedoms? I strongly disagree that conservatism is based on individual freedoms. --[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 23:43, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:I know from personal experience that my transition leftward began a while after I became an atheist.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I strongly oppose that the most important value of conservatives is individual freedom. Actually, individual freedom is the most important principle of liberalism. In addition, you have to differentiate between value and structure conservatism. Most conservatives are value conservatives and as such regard the traditional values of family, religion, honor and truth or at least some of them higher than individual freedom. Structure conservatives prefer everything remains as it is, simply said, whereas value conservatives favor changes that give more importance to the values above. -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

One can't argue from the specific to the general. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
: unless the specific contradicts the general -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

:What? First, my statement was to agree with you. Second, if something happens in one specific case then it must be generally possible.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 15:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:A non-religous conservative is often called a capitalist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::So sayeth you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Who cares you are going to burn in hell for denying Jesus[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:How do you know that God won't send those who believe in him to Hell? Perhaps he wants people to think for themselves and he created the Church in order to test, not man's faith, but man's reason. After all, if God is omnibenevolant, wouldn't He dislike faith because He wants us to use our minds?[[User:Cthx]]

It really is subject to one's definition of conservative. As for the above comment, can you really say that all of the great non-christians in world history, many of whom were far more "christian" than some christians, should "burn in hell?"

well i do know there are some but, not that many given the whole...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:Know your Renaissance eschatology: Dante sez: virtuous Pagans get a castle that's technically inside Hell, but all they have to suffer is knowing that they were wrong.[[User:Cthx]]
::For someone like Socrates, I imagine that would be hell enough. ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Additionally, conservative/liberal are pretty broad terms which I think are greatly overused in the U.S. political landscape. In New Zealand for instance, the leader of our centre-right party is a self-identified agnostic/atheist, and one of our most left-wing parties is led by a staunch Catholic. If anything, I'd say political ideology tends to influence religious character, rather than the other way around. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::Underscoreb, I think it depends on how you define conservative in the New Zealand setting. Jim Anderton may be economically left wing, but on social matters he is a conservative. Therein lies the difference in my opinion. I think it is hard to be a social conservative and an atheist. Various economic policies can come from all over the religious spectrum.[[User:DamianJohn]]

Broadly speaking by definition: A U.S. Conservative traditionally is in support of fiscal freedom and moderate social controls. A Liberal traditionally is in support of social freedom and moderate fiscal controls. Recently though, the truth of the matter has become infinitely complex than that. Bottom line: yes it is possible.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:35, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Of course it is. I'm glad that, though I don't agree with everything on this site, the definition of "conservative" hasn't changed so drastically so as to mean "male white Christan heterosexual." -[[User: ConsevatismisOK[Who's Asking]]

User talk:Jpatt

2012-06-25T22:58:25Z

RaymondW:

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Archive 2011 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2011‎]

== Blank3r ==

Good job stopping him.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 14:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

==Adambro==
Hi Jpatt, what did you mean by "AdamBro is clan but keep on eye on him. Sock puppets of BL4NK3R; NoohWicky, UtterMuppet, Maggie, B0LLL0X". Is he a sockpuppet ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:04, 11 January 2012 (EST)
:AdamBro is clean, as far as socks are involved. He might be what Tony has said, so follow his future edits.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)
::I will, thanks for the info. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:15, 11 January 2012 (EST)

==RaymondW==

Hi Jpatt:

My former account on Conservapedia was named r136a1. The reason you provided for blocking this account is user name policy: please consider recreating your account with a real first name and last initial. Could you please tell me where this policy can be found on Conservapedia? And also, just to clarify, I realize it is not a real name, but it is not a random string of letters and numbers; it is the name of the most luminous star.

== Thank you ==

Thanks for the welcome and reverting vandalism on my user and talk page! I don't understand that vandal --- it was my first day and I don't think i wrote anything controversial, why would anyone do that to me? [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 12:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Get used to liberal intimidation. We can block their ideology but they counter with vandalism. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:15, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::What a shame, indeed. [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 14:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I think KendallP/BostonBakedBeans23 realized he wasn't following the name rule, and so changed it so he wouldn't get blocked. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:17, 16 January 2012 (EST)
:You would like to see Kendall unblocked?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)
::Yes, and thank you for unblocking him. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:28, 16 January 2012 (EST)

: Also, Thanks! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)

== Rubio ==

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit? Everything I said was true and sourced. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 13:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Calling him a liberal is just tit for tat namecalling, but his support for PIPA is well documented. That should stay in the article.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:20, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:Add the PIPA stuff. Keep the liberal statement out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:23, 20 January 2012 (EST)

::Thank you, I will. I don't apprive of name calling, either. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:25, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It wasn't done in namecalling. It has been stated by several members, including Andy, that any Republican supporting SOPA/PIPA is a liberal/rino no matter their record and stances. I questioned it but it was insisted. So I added what I did to Rubio since he was a sponsor. I don't consider Rubio liberal but I don't consider Lamar Smith liberal either. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 15:58, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Yes it is name calling. It was name calling when they did it to Lamar Smith and it was name calling when you did it right back to Rubio. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the proper response to an inappropriate edit is not another inappropriate edit. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:It's too early to label Rubio based on his supporting legislation. The Tea Party backs conservatives and Rubio. Also, I thought it was to early to label Scott Brown. I was wrong once. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)

== Vandalism ==

You do realise that you just reverted all my edits to the ones done by RickPeterson, who got blocked for inserting nonsense? Just saying... --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)
:Yea, Oops--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)
::Well, never mind. You fixed it now. I guess it gets confusing dealing with all those idiots. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:27, 24 January 2012 (EST)

== MPR ==

Just letting you know that it was federal court that overturned Prop 8, not, as implied by your latest entry, a Californian court. Cheers. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:23, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Two issues==
*(a) Archive 107 from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index here] mistakenly brings up Archive 106;
*(b) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/108 Talk:Main Page/Archive index/108] need to be added. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:51, 12 February 2012 (EST)

:Noted--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 13 February 2012 (EST)

== Thanks ==

I wasn't aware I warranted vandalism :P Thanks for the reverts. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 19:37, 25 February 2012 (EST)

:You know what they say? Without evil we would never recognize good. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:44, 25 February 2012 (EST)

== Hi redneck ==

You don't have the skills to edit an encyclopedia. Please go, you monumental idiot. --[[User:Sextertainer|Sextertainer]] 13:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)
::Really, your brain is way too small. You can't write properly. Really. --[[User:Sextertainer|Sextertainer]] 13:48, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Your mom called, she said you are late for your LGBT counseling. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:23, 28 February 2012 (EST)

== Description ==

Hi Mr./Mrs. Jpatt,

(Please accept my apologies on the ambiguous greeting. Gender is difficult on the web without further research) Could you please give me a description of this web site? I'm writing about online media interfaces for a course at my university and would love to learn more.

Thank you,
Sarah

:Hi Sarah, try this [[Conservapedia:About]] and read about the wiki founder Andy Schlafly [[Andy_Schlafly]]. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:05, 2 March 2012 (EST)
::Thank you for the information. I will be in touch with Mr. Schlafly shortly. Sarah

==Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution==
Please show them to me. If there are none, please revert my editing of the United States of America page. - [[Rdsmith]] 10:42 (EST), 8 March 2012
: "all men are endowed by their Creator," In other words, the same era of people that wrote the Constitution, ratified the Declaration of Independence. I will not remove Judeo-Christian principles from the United States of America page. The Founders put us on the Gregorian calender. This means the Judeo-Christian.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:04, 8 March 2012 (EST)

::That is the Declaration of Independence, which is not law, it is a deist reference, and to cite Jefferson for Judeo-Christian values is moot (at least) as he created his own Bible where he cut the New Testament to present Jesus as good moral teacher who died. The Gregorian calender was the prevailing calender at the time, and creating a new calender would have been folly. Again, please show me exclusively Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution. [[Rdsmith]] 11:35 (EST), 8 March 2012

:::Why create a new calender when the Farsi and Chinese calenders already existed? Again, please stop trying to split hairs on the subject between secular and religion. We were not founded as a theocracy and we were not founded as a Godless nation either. The overblown "Jefferson was not religious" lovefest has been debunked already. Your "moot" point that nobody talks about is that Jefferson founded the American Bible Society and paid for the importation of 20000 Bibles. Look at the opening preambles of the 50 state constitutions and their references to God. [http://www.christianindex.org/617.article]. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)
::::I understand that this story has been circulating for many years in many forms but none of this is true. Jefferson did not found the American Bible Society. Neither he nor Congress paid for 20,000 Bibles to be imported. The 20,000 number comes from a proposed resolution in Congress to import Bibles because there were no printers in the US during the revolutionary war and we were obviously embargoed from importing Bibles during the war. After the war there was a real shortage. Jefferson really wasn't Christian in any sense: he may have believed in his own idea of God but he absolutely didn't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, the triune person of Christ, etc. These beliefs are central to Christianity as far as I am aware. I may be wrong about whether evangelicals accept the various personages of Christ. Jefferson accepted none of them. I understand the desire of Christian men to associate important figures with their faiths but we wouldn't do this with a villain or a blasphemer and we oughtn't do it with a man who didn't adore Jesus Christ as his lord and savior but only as some random guy who lived in Palestine a long time ago. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)

:::::I fixed my quote above. Jefferson did respect religion and is quoted praising the Bible. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:16, 8 March 2012 (EST)

::::The people living in the colonies were primarily accustomed to a European (therefore Christ-based) calender so using the Farsi or Chinese calenders would be of equal folly. I'm talking about the government of the United States and since the Articles of Confederation has been godless, as for America the nation, I'll agree it is has a strong Christian heritage (then again to question Christianity openly has been taboo until contemporary times).The "godliness" of the constitutions of the colonies range from freedom to religion to religious requirements for office (the latter being specifically opposed by the Constitution in Article VI). You can fixate on preambles all you want, all they state is ends, while I'm look at means, but I looked at the preambles of the constitutions of the states when America was founded, not very Judeo-Christian to me.

::::So, for a third time, in the context of " the United States Constitution was written; grounded on republican political principles and Judeo-Christian values," show me the specific Judeo-Christian values in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. If not, then I can show you the Enlightenment principles the government of this country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence was based on Locke, but even Locke uses the term "God" as opposed to more deistic references of the Dec. -- [[Rdsmith]] 11:42 (EST) 9 March 2012

:::::I told you once but you didn't listen. You asked me three times but I will not respond. Is gay marriage in the Constitution?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:59, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Would the "exclusively Judeo-Christian (or republican) principles in the US Constitution" include chattel slavery and the fact that people of African descent counted as 3/5 of a human being? [[User:HarveyG|HarveyG]] 12:51, 9 March 2012 (EST)

::::::White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)

== Suggestions ==

Thank you so much for your great work and for the welcome message.
I am so encouraged to see this truly excellent encyclopedia representing what wikipedia could have been with some serious intellectual honesty.

A few suggestions:
1) Human Life International has a new president and is undergoing some great improvements in their ministry, including updating articles and resources. Perhaps they could be added to your top pro-life websites.
2) lovefacts.org is a veritable gold-mine of good medical references documenting the harms of induced abortion and contraception, which we need mine to improve many articles on the subject.
3) pop.org is the Population Research Institutes homepage; it is a pro-life alternative to PP's Guttmacher Institute, and they expose the myth of overpopulation and the numerous human rights abuses throughout the world in the name of "population control." Perhaps "overpopulation myth" or something similar would be a good page to refute these widespread errors driving the culture of death and its devotion to abortion and contraception.

I look forward to contributing in a forum where my input is appreciated and allowed to benefit the souls of all who may read the articles.
[[User:Frankgyn|Frankgyn]] 16:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Awesome, glad to see your interest and feel free to update articles or create new ones. Blessings. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:34, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

==Holy Week==
I'll be mostly absent this week. Blessed Easter! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:38, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Reversion of vandalism ==

I blocked User:ShagMe but I am unable to revert the vandalism due to the spam filter inexplicably preventing me from doing so. It appears that a series of colons (that I obviously can't type here lest the spam filter get me again) is triggering the problem. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks for removing the It Gets Worse link from the Anti-Semite website! ==

Thank you for removing the link to the It Gets Worse page, from a notoriously racist and anti-Semitic "Southern Conservative" website which blames the Jews for Communism, feminism, Facebook, and Psychoanalysis. I hate anti-Semitism, and I know Conservapedia doesn't endorse it either. I know it was a mistake that you posted the link first, but I looked at the website (Jett and Jahn media), and I was disgusted at the anti-Semitism and racism they espouse. They even have downloadable games which show the Ku Klux Klan as good guys! These guys give conservatism a bad name, and they are thankfully nobodies in the conservative movement.

You are indeed a great editor, who learns from his mistakes like any decent human being! Conservapedia forever! -[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]] June 18, 2012

:I have notified [[Jewish Internet Defense Force]]. Thanks again for pointing that out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:00, 18 June 2012 (EDT)